Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > David Brown wrote: >> As far as the two directions, there is a difference. Python is pretty >> much >> defined as an interpreted language. There are people trying to make >> compilers for it, but it's hard. Guido made a lot of design tradeoffs >> in a >> manner that works ok for interpretation but doesn't lend itself well to >> compilation. > > I'm not convinced. People said the same thing about Lisp for a lot of > years. After really smart people had 20 years to work on it, people got > pretty good at compiling it. > > Python has had nowhere near that level of academic effort thrown at it > yet. I'm not sure it ever will. >
Suppose that perl's parrot turns out successful, tractable, and efficient, and furthermore delivers on it's promise to support "other bytecode compiled languages such as Python and Tcl". Maybe even within (say) just a few more years. :-) Would you guess that might open more possibilities? Being common might attract academic effort? Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
