Re:So you want to write a fast Python?
by ohyes on Monday July 11, 2011 @07:55AM
(#2750293)
My point is that you do not have to go full static compilation to achieve the benefits of using machine code and static compilation techniques.
Compiled Common Lisp (without any annotations) is much faster than interpreted python, simply because all of the dynamic dispatch is handled in machine code.
To achieve speeds closer to Java and C++ in Common Lisp, you certainly need type annotations (And a working knowledge of the given compiler).
But we aren't talking about those speeds, we are talking about maybe a 4x improvement, which could be done. Racket is popular because it is easy to use and has a nice library. There are a number of schemes which are faster than it is.
Compiled Common Lisp (without any annotations) is much faster than interpreted python, simply because all of the dynamic dispatch is handled in machine code.
To achieve speeds closer to Java and C++ in Common Lisp, you certainly need type annotations (And a working knowledge of the given compiler).
But we aren't talking about those speeds, we are talking about maybe a 4x improvement, which could be done. Racket is popular because it is easy to use and has a nice library. There are a number of schemes which are faster than it is.