You can check by yourself seeing of the spy compiler translates the code to C in the (super-experimental) spy playground: https://antocuni.pyscriptapps.com/spy-playground/latest/
I've had this thought, and seen others express it. The main problem is there is no general agreement on what should or shouldn't make the cut.
I've sort-of designed a new language from scratch, but I haven't been able to convince myself to make time to implement anything significant, or even really discuss what I've already figured out in any detail.
I do like Mr. Langa's idea about pre-computed ("@blue") code - although it doesn't strike me as particularly novel. (It's something I want to do in my own language, too - or rather, I have in mind a metaprogramming system, so you'd have macros that manipulate the AST and either insert a result when it's fully determined at compile time, or runtime code otherwise.)
i was thinking some weeks ago that it may be time to "fork" python - as language - in a way to preserve the initial simplicity and clarity it did have and is losing faster and faster. But, nevermind. Will have to live with whatever there is.
edit: looking at the code, some things might be optimized but no idea if these are on critical path (like, that switch-by sq_idx, or 6 lines.append.. ), or whether func-calls are as expensive in Spy as they are in Cpy. But anyway, squeezing few percents is not the point.. if one needs magnitudes.