

Design of CPython’s Compiler - sharmajai
http://docs.python.org/devguide/compiler.html

======
oconnore
Seeing how the internals of Python are designed, I can't help but wonder how
programmers don't flock to lisp compilers. The dynamic language without a GIL
problem has already been solved, as has the optimization problem. The amount
of work needed to build libraries like Django or Rails on common lisp or
scheme is a fraction of the work needed to improve cpython/pypy/ruby to the
level of sbcl, ccl, or one of the many high quality scheme's.

Do people just not care about performance? Is GIL locked performance just good
enough? Do developers hate parens enough to justify the huge sacrifice in
everything else?

~~~
machrider
> The amount of work needed to build libraries like Django or Rails on common
> lisp or scheme is a fraction of the work needed to improve cpython/pypy/ruby
> to the level of sbcl, ccl, or one of the many high quality scheme's.

So where are they?

~~~
oconnore
The premise of that quote is that something is missing in both languages. In
that context, your question is sort of absurd.

------
eliben
A shameless plug:

This is a good companion article to that design doc -
[http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2010/06/30/python-internals-
add...](http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2010/06/30/python-internals-adding-a-new-
statement-to-python/)

------
sharmajai
This is best read with CPython's source code available on the side for
reference IMHO.

