On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:54:22 -0500 "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In order to be that fast, some of the dynamism of > intepreted Lisp must be given up. In particular object > code is not list data. Python with type-dynamism > eliminated can also be translated to decent C/C++ and then > compiled. See PyRex and Weave. There is also Psyco, > which I believe translates directly to machine code.
I thought it was just "Pyrex" as in "Still as clear as glass, but can really take the heat.". ;-) Now it's a small snake / dog chimera. Eeeww. You've ruined it for me. > > so I don't understand why Python can't also eventually > > be as efficient? Is there some *specific* basic reason > > it's tough? Or is it that this type of problem in > > general is tough, and Lisp has 40+ years vs Python's ~15 > > years? Otherwise, I think this has been well-answered -- if you give up the same features, you can get the same speed. But who cares? Those things only matter in a very limited domain, and real programs can use Python for logic and Python extension modules for things that truly need optimization. If you use Pyrex, you can even still pretend you're programming in Python when you write those extensions. I'm sure that's why some 3D libraries have opted to write the fast code in Pyrex instead of C (even though either is possible). -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
