"I know it is a much better VM."
SBCL isn't a VM. It's a Lisp implementation with a compiler that generates native code.
Admittedly, many dynamic languages folks seem to find this concept odd. The idea that {dynamic typing, garbage collection, your favourite feature from ruby/python/perl/php} requires a VM unfortunately seems strongly ingrained.
[deleted]
Well, if you really want to use Lisp code and Python libraries, and are prepared to write a compiler, why not do the translation in the reverse direction? Write a compiler from Python to Lisp, and bring Python libraries to Lisp.
[edit: irrelevant stuff removed since parent was deleted]
It is definitely something to consider, and while I don't think translating Python to Common Lisp would be all that difficult, I do think that getting the C libraries that Python wraps working with CL might be a significant effort. A lot of the good libraries like csv, re, etc, are implemented in C if I remember correctly.
> And I'm just wondering...even with SBCL, why would it be an 'incredibly bad idea' to undertake such a project to convert a Lisp dialect to Python?
Well...what's the point of compiling Lisp into a language with a slower runtime? If you mean that you want it to compiel to something "pretty", well, the output of a compiler is generally not pretty. It's just meant to be used as opaque object code, not something for human consumption.
I thought I made it clear. The point of doing that is because you'd have simple access to Python's massive collection of quality libraries.
> That would be an incredibly bad idea.
And I'm just wondering...even with SBCL, why would it be an 'incredibly bad idea' to undertake such a project to convert a Lisp dialect to Python?