I am not describing JITs, I am describing VM based languages, which have the ability to incrementally statically compile functional objects. Does that help?
Ohyes is talking about per-function static compilation performed on the fly to machine code. Not bytecode.
It seems about halfway between static compilers and JITs really: functions are compiled to actual machine code statically, but the VM can recompile functions or compile new functions and replace old ones (of the same name) on the fly, e.g. during a REPL session.
That's not what Python does, Python code is compiled to VM bytecode and the VM does not compile it any further.
Under ohyes's scheme, the VM would compile that bytecode further down to machine code (or just skip the bytecode). It's closer to what HiPE does than what Python does.
Not at all, dynamically typed languages have varying amounts of effective dynamicity (and staticity), some should be static enough to infer most types statically. Erlang for instance is not overly dynamic.
> I am talking about dynamic compilation to machine code (Not JIT). From that, you can alter how much code in-lining and optimization happen in nested calls. It is a much used technique and I do not need to prove its validity.
You're describing JITs here, why are you saying "not JIT"?
> Everyone in here seems blind to the possibility, which puzzles me.
Everyone "seems blind" because you're describing JITs and saying you're not talking about JITs, you're about as clear as tar during a moonless night here.