Dylan is a very well designed object-oriented dynamic language with 2 solid implementations. One implementation compiles directy to machine code, and the other compiles to C code as an intermediate. Dylan has many advanced features, including optional typing.
It's hard to believe it's the year 2001 and many computer have 256 Mb of RAM, but many programmers are still programming with sticks and stones (C, C++).
> Is it possible to make Python
> as fast as C/C++
In short, no, it's not possible.
I keep seeing people interested in a Python compiler to speed up execution Python code.
But I am dismayed by peoples on slashdot.org general lack of interest in Dylan, which is not only a WAY WAY COOL (TM) language, but a more powerful and more flexible language than Python and efficiently compilable into code that performs as fast as C/C++.
And the sad reason that the great technically superior languages aren't used by more people is basically because not many other people using them. Face it, the average programmer is basically a herd animal. With the adoption of new languages we have the chicken and the egg problem... which is very hard to escape from (except through superior marketing (as in the case of Java) or with an 800 kilogram gorilla promoting the language (i.e. Microsoft and their ridiculous languages).
To paraphrase Guido "Dylan is like Python, but so much more".
To me, things will get interesting once one of these languages actually starts delivering a non-trivial, high-performance native code compiler
That language exists, and it's called Dylan. Dylan is highly abstract and flexible but can be efficiently compiled. There are two good native code compiler Dylan implementions already (one is really excellent).
> You don't have to use the same language to write a device
> driver that you do for a web app, or GUI db front end, or
> client side HTML form validation, etc.
>
> If you think you do you're a jackass
> There is no all-encompassing perfect langauge, just a perfect language
> for the job at hand. Sometimes you need to put out an application quickly,
> sometimes you need to put out an application that runs quickly.
WRONG! Versatility CAN be designed into a language. Take the Dylan programming language for example. It allows a broad range of dynamism vs. staticism... at the discretion of the programmer. Take for example Dylan's use of optional typing that can be used by the compiler for optimization of code. You can write a prototype version of application without any types, and then just sprinkle in typing info where needed to improve the performance of bottlenecks. With Dylan you can put out an application quickly and then make it run quickly... not re-write it in a different language. See http://www.gwydiondylan.org and http://www.functionobjects.com
for more details.
Dylan is more elegant than even Python, but was designed to be efficiently compiled. This is from an interview with Guido in the linux journal (http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue68/37 09.html):
Phil: It seems like Python is starting to be taken really seriously in web development and so on. Is Python being taken seriously in academia? I guess I mean relative to Perl, because Perl isn't, as far as I can see.
Guido: I would say Python is being taken a lot more seriously. There are language designers who don't approve of certain short cuts, or the fact that Python doesn't have static typing, or the fact that there are other languages out there that are as good as Python is, and again borrow all the good features from those languages.
Phil: What languages?
Guido: Some people think, for instance, that Dylan--which I think has a very academic flavor--is everything Python is plus so much more.
Phil: Dylan? I've never heard of it.
Guido: Well, that's exactly Dylan's problem. I don't know, but I think it started out as a LISP variant, with sort of an alternative syntax. The syntax was deliberately unLISPish in order not to scare off everyone who is not already brainwashed with LISP, because LISP has one of the biggest image problems of any programming
language in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Dylan is a very well designed object-oriented dynamic language with 2 solid implementations. One implementation compiles directy to machine code, and the other compiles to C code as an intermediate. Dylan has many advanced features, including optional typing.
It's hard to believe it's the year 2001 and many computer have 256 Mb of RAM, but many programmers are still programming with sticks and stones (C, C++).
> Is it possible to make Python
> as fast as C/C++
In short, no, it's not possible.
I keep seeing people interested in a Python compiler to speed up execution Python code.
But I am dismayed by peoples on slashdot.org general lack of interest in Dylan, which is not only a WAY WAY COOL (TM) language, but a more powerful and more flexible language than Python and efficiently compilable into code that performs as fast as C/C++.
And the sad reason that the great technically superior languages aren't used by more people is basically because not many other people using them. Face it, the average programmer is basically a herd animal. With the adoption of new languages we have the chicken and the egg problem... which is very hard to escape from (except through superior marketing (as in the case of Java) or with an 800 kilogram gorilla promoting the language (i.e. Microsoft and their ridiculous languages). To paraphrase Guido "Dylan is like Python, but so much more".
To me, things will get interesting once one of these languages actually starts delivering a non-trivial, high-performance native code compiler
That language exists, and it's called Dylan. Dylan is highly abstract and flexible but can be efficiently compiled. There are two good native code compiler Dylan implementions already (one is really excellent).
I forgot to mention that the Dylan programming languages is self-extensible via its hygenic macro system.
I'm sorry, but I think a serious general-purpose language without hygenic macros is just lame in this year of 2001.
And Dylan is smarter, faster, better than Python or Ruby (unless you just want to embed a language interpreter in your app).
Dylan compilers are written in Dylan!
> You don't have to use the same language to write a device
> driver that you do for a web app, or GUI db front end, or
> client side HTML form validation, etc.
>
> If you think you do you're a jackass
> There is no all-encompassing perfect langauge, just a perfect language
> for the job at hand. Sometimes you need to put out an application quickly,
> sometimes you need to put out an application that runs quickly.
WRONG! Versatility CAN be designed into a language. Take the Dylan programming language for example. It allows a broad range of dynamism vs. staticism... at the discretion of the programmer. Take for example Dylan's use of optional typing that can be used by the compiler for optimization of code. You can write a prototype version of application without any types, and then just sprinkle in typing info where needed to improve the performance of bottlenecks. With Dylan you can put out an application quickly and then make it run quickly... not re-write it in a different language. See http://www.gwydiondylan.org and http://www.functionobjects.com
for more details.
Dylan is more elegant than even Python, but was designed to be efficiently compiled. This is from an interview with Guido in the linux journal (http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue68/37 09.html):
Phil: It seems like Python is starting to be taken really seriously in web development and so on. Is Python being taken seriously in academia? I guess I mean relative to Perl, because Perl isn't, as far as I can see.
Guido: I would say Python is being taken a lot more seriously. There are language designers who don't approve of certain short cuts, or the fact that Python doesn't have static typing, or the fact that there are other languages out there that are as good as Python is, and again borrow all the good features from those languages.
Phil: What languages?
Guido: Some people think, for instance, that Dylan--which I think has a very academic flavor--is everything Python is plus so much more.
Phil: Dylan? I've never heard of it.
Guido: Well, that's exactly Dylan's problem. I don't know, but I think it started out as a LISP variant, with sort of an alternative syntax. The syntax was deliberately unLISPish in order not to scare off everyone who is not already brainwashed with LISP, because LISP has one of the biggest image problems of any programming
language in the world.