Paul Rubin wrote:
.... I haven't anywhere in this thread as far as I know suggested eliminating dynamism from Python, which would be in "that's not Python any more" territory. But, in the dozens of class definitions I write in any given day of coding, I might use the dynamism we're talking about in 1% of them at most. If having to type a few extra keystrokes on that 1% improves program reliabiity AND performance, it certainly seems worth it to me.
But, the research on the language "Self" shows that even in the face of a language with more dynamism than Smalltalk (or Python), performance can be obtained using compiler technology. It turns out you don't have to type those type any extra keystrokes. Compilers capable of doing strong optimization already have to do enough analysis that they can discover the static typing that is available in the code you write naturally. The way to get to such performance on Python is through efforts like PyPy. --Scott David Daniels scott.dani...@acm.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
