From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 13 22:00:36 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0069A1065670 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:00:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from oproxy1-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy1.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B75B98FC16 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:00:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 20702 invoked by uid 0); 13 Sep 2011 22:00:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by oproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2011 22:00:35 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apotheon.com; s=default; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; bh=oQR2PYL9NrbdjDBWkbAQIPbOI5z3Dp0jkks6R7fiJ9E=; b=cxVCv0mQYZya8BJG68YB1uevR7vI+5zyps4hNQB75SXW3r75F759PR6RaNKWFhWmsW9MIyf5C29g41woeDkvKCimWURrnAp+UOFPbrp8mWDq2bqpozZxIY8h2RNfYGcg; Received: from c-24-8-180-234.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.180.234] helo=kukaburra.hydra) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R3b1u-0008Il-Aw for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:00:35 -0600 Received: by kukaburra.hydra (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:41:31 -0600 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:41:31 -0600 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110913214131.GA38158@guilt.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20110913213748.GA47026@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ibTvN161/egqYuK8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110913213748.GA47026@lpthe.jussieu.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.org} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with ren@apotheon.org} Subject: Re: *caution* severely OT!! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:00:36 -0000 --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:37:48PM +0200, Michel Talon wrote: >=20 > 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. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk5vzgsACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKWj+QCg1A5mRF+l0LRZWS0MrjqvGQWt J7AAn1ubvcvAUhUlzL1IYvJk82DkGfpC =LDd9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ibTvN161/egqYuK8--