*caution* severely OT!!
perrin at apotheon.com
Tue Sep 13 22:00:36 UTC 2011
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:37:48PM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
> In the case of the example cited above, there was 0 performance benefit
> of using C++ over pyrex. There is a language which is syntactically
> very close to python and has the same facilities, but ends up in
> machine code, this could interest you, it is Common Lisp. Here the
> translation would be cheap and direct. It may be that the end result is
> very fast, C-like, or it may be that the end result is almost as slow
> as python, there is black magic here.
I really don't think I'd say that Common Lisp is "syntactically very
close to python [sic]". It's not fair to either Common Lisp or Python,
and in any case it really does not strike me as being very accurate at
all. Given the deep semantic differences between Common Lisp and Python,
I wouldn't say it would be as "cheap and direct" a translation as you
describe it, either.
I'm not saying Common Lisp would be a bad choice for translation of a
Python program to a language that compiles to a binary executable, but
your description of the language does not strike me as accurate.
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20110913/6236c370/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions