PyPornography was: Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:05:40 -0500, rumours say that Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have written: >Chris Mellon wrote: >[...] >> Torstens definition isn't useful for quantifying a difference between >> interpeted and compiled - it's a rough sort of feel-test. It's like >> how much of a nak

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Hallöchen! "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Torsten Bronger wrote: > >> [...] >> >> I'm still afraid of the following scenario: Eventually, people >> might regard "RPython plus type declarations" (or something >> similar) as first-class Python because it's faster and runs on >> more i

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Torsten Bronger wrote: > Hallöchen! > > "Paul Boddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Kay Schluehr wrote: > > > >> I would say yes, it is still "proper Python" in that each RPython > >> program is also a CPython program. > > > > I suppose it depends on which direction you're coming from, in > >

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Torsten Bronger wrote: > > Peter Mayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What kind of implications are useful to you? > > Speed, ease of programming, necessity to learn/use a secondary > language, issues with distributing, portability. Indeed. Given the various convenient arguments about what "inter

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Hallöchen! Peter Mayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Torsten Bronger wrote: > > Another example: is Java the bytecode, which is compiled from > Java the language, interpreted or not? Even when the HotSpot > JIT cuts in? It is partly interpreted and partly compiled. That's w

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > But Lisp isn't dynamically typed "exactly the way Python is". > Python documents ways to manipulate the internals of objects at > runtime. It is possible to add, change or delete methods and slots > by directly changing the hashtable they're stored in. While CLOS > doe

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Torsten Bronger wrote: > Another example: is Java the bytecode, which is compiled from Java the language, interpreted or not? Even when the HotSpot JIT cuts in? >>> It is partly interpreted and partly compiled. That's why it's >>> faster than Python. >> But Python is partly interpr

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

> Paul Rubin wrote: > I think both of you are missing the point of the question, which is > that Lisp is dynamically typed exactly the way Python is and maps to > Python almost directly; yet good Lisp implementations are much faster > than CPython. But Lisp isn't dynamically typed "exactly the way

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, if like Python and haven't looked at Ruby, it's worth a glance. If > Python can be called similar to Lisp, then Ruby is even more so. I'm not > fond of Ruby's perlesqe syntax, but I like many of the fundamental ideas. I can't get over Ruby's ugly syn

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Alexander Schmolck wrote: > Rocco Moretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think it's worth pointing out that not all dynamicism is equal, when it > > comes to difficulty in compiling to machine code. > > No kidding (do you have any idea how this thread started out?). I had to remind myself. >

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Hallöchen! "Paul Boddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Kay Schluehr wrote: > >> I would say yes, it is still "proper Python" in that each RPython >> program is also a CPython program. > > I suppose it depends on which direction you're coming from, in > that many Python programs just wouldn't be a

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Kay Schluehr wrote: > > I would say yes, it is still "proper Python" in that each RPython > program is also a CPython program. I suppose it depends on which direction you're coming from, in that many Python programs just wouldn't be able to run in RPython. But then I can understand the convenience

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Donn Cave wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > > They won't say Java. Ask them why Python is interpreted and Java isn't > > and you'll have a hard time getting a decent technical answer, because > > Python isn't all that different from Java

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Many people in this thread have said things like: > Interpreted? Compiled? Scripting language? Let me quote from the preface to "Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide" by David Thomas and Andrew Hunt (aka "the pickaxe book"). -- In the old days, the distinction between la

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Paul Boddie wrote: > Kay Schluehr wrote: > > Paul Rubin wrote: > > > "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I talked to Richard Emslie recently and he told me that the PyPy team > > > > works on a mechanism to create CPython-extension modules written in > > > > RPython i.e. a staticall

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Rocco Moretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it's worth pointing out that not all dynamicism is equal, when it > comes to difficulty in compiling to machine code. No kidding (do you have any idea how this thread started out?). > Lisp, like the good functional language that it is, has (pri

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote: > Chris Mellon wrote: > > I've encountered a C scripting environment that works by using GCC to > > compile each line as it is encountered, doing some magic to keep a > > working compilation environment around. > > > > Interpreted? Compiled? > > > > There is also the wond

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Alexander Schmolck wrote: > I wanted to point > out that one could with just as much justification claim CL to be more dynamic > than python (it is in some regards, but not in others -- how to weight them to > achieve some overall "score" is not obvious. I think it's worth pointing out that not a

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:46:27 -0800, Donn Cave wrote: > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > >> Hey Donn, here is a compiled program for the PowerPC, > >> or an ARM processor, or one of IBM's Big Iron > >> mainframes.

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > Well. "... the PyPy team works on ..." is definitively much too strong. > It is more like "... the PyPy team is thinking about ...". It is very > unclear whether it will work on a technical level and whether the EU > will allow us to allocate resourc

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

"Michele Simionato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I replied to this message yesterday, but it did not appear, so let's > try again. > > I agree with your points, but I would not say that Lisp is > intrinsically more dynamic than Python as a language; Neither would I -- I don't think either is ob

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Who says Python is so slow? I've just got Python to count from 0 up to > 100,000, and it only took 7 milliseconds. That's at least 12 milliseconds > faster than I can count on my fingers. +1 QOTW -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

I replied to this message yesterday, but it did not appear, so let's try again. I agree with your points, but I would not say that Lisp is intrinsically more dynamic than Python as a language; it is just more interactive and has more features (and more complexities too). BTW, regarding your first

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Carl Friedrich Bolz: > Indeed, there are similarities to pyrex. Of course in pyrex you have to > give the types yourself, but since the type inference engine of PyPy can > sometimes be hard to understand this is maybe not the worst trade-off. > A nice advantage of the PyPy approach would be that yo

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Paul Rubin wrote: > "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>I talked to Richard Emslie recently and he told me that the PyPy team >>works on a mechanism to create CPython-extension modules written in >>RPython i.e. a statically translateable subset of Python. So even >>without dynamic code

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Kay Schluehr wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I talked to Richard Emslie recently and he told me that the PyPy team > > > works on a mechanism to create CPython-extension modules written in > > > RPython i.e. a statically translateable subset of Python

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Hallöchen! Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:15:21 +0100, Torsten Bronger wrote: > >>> And, as someone in this thread has pointed out, it is likely >>> that your important modern (x86) processor is not natively >>> executing your x86 code, and indeed meets your

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Hallöchen! Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:15:21 +0100, Torsten Bronger wrote: > >>> And, as someone in this thread has pointed out, it is likely >>> that your important modern (x86) processor is not natively >>> executing your x86 code, and indeed meets your

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Paul Rubin wrote: > "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I talked to Richard Emslie recently and he told me that the PyPy team > > works on a mechanism to create CPython-extension modules written in > > RPython i.e. a statically translateable subset of Python. So even > > without dynamic

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

"Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I talked to Richard Emslie recently and he told me that the PyPy team > works on a mechanism to create CPython-extension modules written in > RPython i.e. a statically translateable subset of Python. So even > without dynamic code specialization there wi

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > But over time, as PyPy, Psycho, and other technologies bear fruit, Python > will speed up, even though it will remain interpreted. I talked to Richard Emslie recently and he told me that the PyPy team works on a mechanism to create CPython-extension modules written in RP

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:15:21 +0100, Torsten Bronger wrote: >> And, as someone in this thread has pointed out, it is likely that >> your important modern (x86) processor is not natively executing >> your x86 code, and indeed meets your definition of having "in its >> typical implementation an inter

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Hallöchen! Peter Mayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Torsten Bronger wrote: > >> My definiton would be that an interpreted language has in its >> typical implementation an interpreting layer necessary for typical >> hardware. Of couse, now we could discuss what is "typical", >> however, in pract

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Quoth Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ... | Do you honestly believe that the CPU doesn't have to interpret the machine | code, or are you just deliberately playing silly buggers with language? I don't care whether the CPU has to interpret machine code. Are you suggesting that we might in nor

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Torsten Bronger wrote: > > My definiton would be that an interpreted language has in its > typical implementation an interpreting layer necessary for typical > hardware. Of couse, now we could discuss what is "typical", > however, in practice one would know it, I think. In case of Python: > CPyt

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Chris Mellon wrote: [snip] > I don't think it does, though. Firstly, as a definition it relies on > the environment the application will be running under and therefore > can't be considered to describe just a language. Secondly, by that > definition Java is an interpreted language which is at odds

RE: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Terry Reedy wrote: >>> The the compiler is built into the VM as opposed to a separate tool >>> (like Java) is just an implementation issue. That was me, not Paul - careful with the attributions. Otherwise Paul might think you were trying to ascribe some awful, inaccurate statement to him ;) > Th

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:46:27 -0800, Donn Cave wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> Hey Donn, here is a compiled program for the PowerPC, >> or an ARM processor, or one of IBM's Big Iron >> mainframes. Or even a Commodore 64. What do you

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

> As they say, case is the difference between "I helped my > Uncle Jack off a horse" and "I helped my uncle jack off a horse." Hahaha!... never heard of that though -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Chris Mellon wrote: [...] > Torstens definition isn't useful for quantifying a difference between > interpeted and compiled - it's a rough sort of feel-test. It's like > how much of a naked body you can expose before before it changes from > art to pornography - it's not something that is easily qu

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > They won't say Java. Ask them why Python is interpreted and Java isn't > and you'll have a hard time getting a decent technical answer, because > Python isn't all that different from Java in that regard, especially > p

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Hey Donn, here is a compiled program for the PowerPC, > or an ARM processor, or one of IBM's Big Iron > mainframes. Or even a Commodore 64. What do you think > the chances are that you can execute it on your > x86

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

On 21 Feb 2006 08:30:04 -0800, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Mellon wrote: > > > > You're correct as far as it goes, but can you provide a reasonable > > definition for "interpreted" that matches the common usage? Most > > people can't. > > I thought Torsten's definition was good e

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

"Paul Boddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Well, yes, I suppose you could have something just interpreting > bytecodes and with no support for parsing and compiling Python the > language - I suppose PyMite [1, 2] and other similar works are like > that. > >> The t

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Donn Cave wrote: > I can say "Python can serve as a scripting language for some applications", > but not "Python is a scripting language!" bruno at modulix wrote: > as soon as you say "interpreted, scripting", peoples think "not > serious". Cameron Laird wrote: > I *think* you're proposing tha

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:36:50 -0600 in comp.lang.python, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > >When asked to name some interpreted (or scripting) languages, they'll >name some off - perl, python, ruby, javascript, basic... > >They won't say Java. Ask them why Python is interpreted and

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Chris Mellon wrote: > > You're correct as far as it goes, but can you provide a reasonable > definition for "interpreted" that matches the common usage? Most > people can't. I thought Torsten's definition was good enough: if the instructions typically produced when preparing your programs for exec

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

On 2/20/06, Donn Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoth Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > ... > | Nobody denies that Python code running with no optimization tricks is > | (currently) slower than compiled C code. That's a matter of objective > | fact. Nobody denies that Python can be easily r

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Alexander Schmolck wrote: > "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Alexanders hypothesis is completely absurd. > > You're currently not in the best position to make this claim, since you > evidently misunderstood what I wrote (I certainly did not mean to suggest that > Guido *deliberatel

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > The "Python is both interpreted and compiled" camp, who > believe that both steps are equally important, and to > raise one over the other in importance is misleading. > That's why Sun doesn't describe Java as interpreted, > but as byte-code compiled. They did that before t

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Donn Cave wrote: > Quoth Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > ... > | Nobody denies that Python code running with no optimization tricks is > | (currently) slower than compiled C code. That's a matter of objective > | fact. Nobody denies that Python can be easily run in interactive mode. > | Nob

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Delaney, Timothy (Tim) wrote: > Donn Cave wrote: > > > for very long. If you give me a Python program, you have 3 choices: > > cross your fingers and hope that I have the required Python > > interpreter version, slip in a 25Mb Python interpreter install and > > hope I won't notice, or come clean a

RE: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Donn Cave wrote: > for very long. If you give me a Python program, you have 3 choices: > cross your fingers and hope that I have the required Python > interpreter version, slip in a 25Mb Python interpreter install and > hope I won't notice, or come clean and tell me that your program > needs an

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Quoth Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ... | Nobody denies that Python code running with no optimization tricks is | (currently) slower than compiled C code. That's a matter of objective | fact. Nobody denies that Python can be easily run in interactive mode. | Nobody denies that *at some level

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

"Michele Simionato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Schmolck wrote: > > As common lisp and scheme demonstrate you can have high level of dynamism > > (and > > in a number of things both are more dynamic than python) and still get very > > good performance (in some cases close to or better

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 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? > > > > It is by design. > Python is not slow by design. Python is dynam

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'm wondering if someone can explain to me please what it is about > Python that is so different from Lisp that it can't be compiled into > something as fast as compiled Lisp? From this above website and > others, I've learned that compiled Lisp can be nearly as fast as

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

"Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexanders hypothesis is completely absurd. You're currently not in the best position to make this claim, since you evidently misunderstood what I wrote (I certainly did not mean to suggest that Guido *deliberately* chose to make python slow; quite th

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Torsten Bronger wrote: > > By the way, this is my main concern about optional static typing: It > may change the target group, i.e. it may move Python closer to those > applications where speed really matters, which again would have an > effect on what will be considered Pythonic. Yes, I think tha

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I was rather stunned, too, when I read his line of thought. > Nevertheless, I think it's not pointless, albeit formulated in an > awkward way. Of course, Python has not been deliberately slowed > down. Indeed -- and I'm really not sure what defect in

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:54:34 +, Donn Cave wrote: > The reason this isn't just an abstruse philosophical argument where it > makes sense for us to obtusely cling to some indefensible point of view, > is that as the man points out, there are differences that we can't hide > forever from potentia

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:18:39 -0800, Kay Schluehr wrote: > > >> What's far more interesting to me, however, is that I think there a good > >> reasons to suspect python's slowness is more of a feature than a flaw: I'd > >> not > >> be suprised if on the whole it greatly incr

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Hallöchen! [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Laird) writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I wondered: > >> [...] Do you truly believe that fewer people would use Python if >> its execution were faster? > > I think I can answer my own question: yes. Since posting, I came > across a different follow

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Kay Schluehr wrote: > Yes, it's Guidos master-plan to lock programmers into a slow language > in order to dominate them for decades. Do you also believe that Al > Quaida is a phantom organization of the CIA founded by neocons in the > early '90s who planned to invade Iraq? Actually, it was created

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:18:39 -0800, Kay Schluehr wrote: >> What's far more interesting to me, however, is that I think there a good >> reasons to suspect python's slowness is more of a feature than a flaw: I'd >> not >> be suprised if on the whole it greatly increases programmer productivity and

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I wondered: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > . > . > . >>However I don't find it at all implausible to assume that had Guido known all >>the stuff that

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Quoth Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: | Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... |> bash is a scripting language for *n*x systems. javascript is a scripting |> language for web browsers. VBScript is a scripting language for MS |> applications. | | Python is also a scripting langu

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

"Donn Cave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quoth Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > | "Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... > |> the only even remotely formal definition I've ever seen is "language with > |> designed to script an existing application, with limited support for >

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Schmolck a écrit : > > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >>DH a écrit : > >>(snip) > >> > >>>It is by design. Python is dynamically typed. It is essentially an > >>>interpreted scripting language like javascript or

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: . . . >However I don't find it at all implausible to assume that had Guido known all >the stuff that say, David Ungar and Guy Steele were aware of a

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Quoth Carl Friedrich Bolz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: | Torsten Bronger wrote: |> Well, I think that it's fair to say that there are by principle deep |> run time differences between CPython and, say, a typical |> C++-compiled program. Your definition would not reproduce that. I |> think it's also fair

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Schmolck wrote: > > > My point was that Guido probably (and fortunately!) was unaware of the > > extent > > to which you can have both dynamism and speed For the convenience of other readers, allow me to restore the snipped second half of

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Hallöchen! Carl Friedrich Bolz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Torsten Bronger wrote: > >> [...] >> >> My definiton would be that an interpreted language has in its >> typical implementation an interpreting layer necessary for >> typical hardware. Of couse, now we could discuss what is >> "typical

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

> What's far more interesting to me, however, is that I think there a good > reasons to suspect python's slowness is more of a feature than a flaw: I'd not > be suprised if on the whole it greatly increases programmer productivity and > results in clearer and more uniform code. Yes, it's Guidos ma

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Torsten Bronger wrote: > Well, I think that it's fair to say that there are by principle deep > run time differences between CPython and, say, a typical > C++-compiled program. Your definition would not reproduce that. I > think it's also fair to say that these differences should be known > if so

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Alexander Schmolck wrote: > > > My point was that Guido probably (and fortunately!) was unaware of the > > extent > > to which you can have both dynamism and speed > > any my point was that chosing to ignore something doesn't mean > that you're ignorant. I think it's more c

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

bruno at modulix wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: > (snip) > > > I'm not sure why people get all defensive about Python's > > interpreted/scripting designation > > Because it carries a negative connotation of "slow toy language not > suitable for 'serious' tasks". Dynamicity apart, CPython's > implement

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Hallöchen! bruno at modulix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Torsten Bronger wrote: > >> [...] >> >> I've had such a discussion about TeX already, and my personal >> conclusion was that you can defend almost any opinion in that >> area. However, one should ensure that the definitions make a >> prag

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Harald Armin Massa wrote: >>>OK, but then we should change , >>>which starts with "Python is an interpreted, interactive, >>>object-oriented programming language." > > > I second this motion. Even tried to persuade the site maintainer > before. We should really

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Paul Boddie wrote: (snip) > I'm not sure why people get all defensive about Python's > interpreted/scripting designation Because it carries a negative connotation of "slow toy language not suitable for 'serious' tasks". Dynamicity apart, CPython's implementation is much closer to Java than to bas

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Torsten Bronger wrote: > Hallöchen! > > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>Alexander Schmolck a écrit : >> >> >>>Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>> [...] It's not a "scripting" language, and it's not interpreted. >>> >>>Of course it is. What d

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Steven wrote: > And I'm just waiting for somebody to mention Forth, Probably not the context you expected it to be mentioned in. > > Yet one could potentially have that bytecode interpreter in hardware. > Not potentially, in actuality. I know of only one example, Shouldn't the Forth Chips from

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Alexander Schmolck wrote: > As common lisp and scheme demonstrate you can have high level of dynamism (and > in a number of things both are more dynamic than python) and still get very > good performance (in some cases close to or better than C). Just for personal enlightment, where do you think L

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

>>OK, but then we should change , >>which starts with "Python is an interpreted, interactive, >>object-oriented programming language." I second this motion. Even tried to persuade the site maintainer before. We should really, really change it. The perceived spee

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Quoth Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: | "Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... |> the only even remotely formal definition I've ever seen is "language with |> designed to script an existing application, with limited support for handling |> its own state". | |> Early Tcl and JavaSc

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Alexander Schmolck wrote: > My point was that Guido probably (and fortunately!) was unaware of the extent > to which you can have both dynamism and speed any my point was that chosing to ignore something doesn't mean that you're ignorant. (but since you keep repeating this nonsense, it's clear t

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Ho, really ? How many applications using Python as scripting language ? http://wiki.python.org/moin/AppsWithPythonScripting lists many, but it's obviously woefully incomplete -- e.g., it's missing Civilization IV, a very popular, major new ga

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > DH a écrit : > (snip) > > > > It is by design. Python is dynamically typed. It is essentially an > > interpreted scripting language like javascript or ruby or perl, > > It's not a "scripting" language, and it's not interpreted. OK, but then we s

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:02:16 -0800, Paul Boddie wrote: > > >> Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> > Ok, then what do you think happens to 'machine' code ? > >> > > >> > "interpreted" usually means "no compilation, all parsing etc > >> > redone at eac

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

>> Of course it is. What do you think happens to the bytecode? > Ok, then what do you think happens to 'machine' code ? I believe that on modern CISC processors the human level 'machine code' is interpreted by subroutines written in the actual machine code usually called 'microcode'. tjr

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Schmolck wrote: > > > You might want to argue about whether scriping language is a meaningful and > > useful concept, but it's really hard to see how you could talk about > > "scripting > > languages" without including python. > > define "

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By that logic, all languages are interpreted. What do you think happens to > the machinecode? Interpreted to transistors state by an internal mapping in the CPU opcode ==> input configuration. -- Valentino Volonghi aka Dialtone Now Running MacOSX 10.

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:02:16 -0800, Paul Boddie wrote: > Torsten Bronger wrote: >> Hallöchen! >> >> Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > Ok, then what do you think happens to 'machine' code ? >> > >> > "interpreted" usually means "no compilation, all parsing etc >> > redone at

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Schmolck wrote: > > > What's far more interesting to me, however, is that I think there a good > > reasons to suspect python's slowness is more of a feature than a flaw: I'd > > not > > be suprised if on the whole it greatly increases progr

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:26:20 +, Alexander Schmolck wrote: > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> DH a écrit : >> (snip) >> > It is by design. Python is dynamically typed. It is essentially an >> > interpreted scripting language like javascript or ruby or perl, >> >> >> It's

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Torsten Bronger wrote: > Hallöchen! > > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Ok, then what do you think happens to 'machine' code ? > > > > "interpreted" usually means "no compilation, all parsing etc > > redone at each execution", which is not the case with a > > bytecode/vm bas

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Hallöchen! Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Schmolck a écrit : > >> Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> [...] >>> >>> It's not a "scripting" language, and it's not interpreted. >> >> Of course it is. What do you think happens to the bytecode? > > Ok,

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Great, thank you and everyone for this nice discussion. Michael -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not a "scripting" language, and it's not interpreted. http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html#what-is-python "Python is an interpreted, interactive, object-oriented programming language." -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-l

Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

Alexander Schmolck a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>DH a écrit : >>(snip) >> >>>It is by design. Python is dynamically typed. It is essentially an >>>interpreted scripting language like javascript or ruby or perl, >> >> >>It's not a "scripting" language, and it's

  1   2   >