In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>It's hard to refute your assertion. You're claiming that some future
>hypothetical Python implementation will have excellent performance via a JIT.
>On top of that you say that you're willing to change the definition of the
>Python language, say by adding type declarations, if an implementation with a
>JIT doesn't pan out. If you change the Python language to address the
>semantic problems Willem lists in his post and also add optional type
>declarations, then Python becomes closer to Common Lisp, which we know can be
>executed efficiently, within the same ballpark as C and Java.
Ya know; without looking at Go, I'd bet that this was some of the thought
process that was behind it.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
