There are three observations which are really interesting to me. One is that traditionally, there was a clear split between "system languages" which were usual

There are three observations which are really interesting to me. One is that traditionally, there was a clear split between "system languages" which were usually fast, compiled languages that were relatively verbose, not very comfortable, and comparatively unsafe -- and "scripting languages", which were dynamically typed, dynamic memory management, often interpreted, offered more data types and facilities, but were slower. C belonged clearly to the first group and shell scripts, Perl and Python to the second. But the gap between these two groups has been shrinking, as languages are overall converging: Java uses dynamic memory management, Go has a very fast compiler, C++, Scala and Rust have iterators, type inference and such. On the other hand, script-like languages added type annotations, got generally faster, and so on. Much of this is due to better and better compilers. Python stands out in this landscape like a sore thumb - its performance did not profit much from better compilers. There is another axis which is the range between direct low-level manipulation of bits and bytes and symbolic computation and functional languages. Lisps, OCaml, Scala and Haskell are from the family tree of symbolic computation. Traditionally, these languages were heavy-weights and slow compared to the system languages, but they also have seen enormous progress from better compilers - Common Lisp implementations like SBCL can now produce code which is almost as fast as C. As a consequence, there is also a convergence of general languages with "symbolic" features like first-class functions, type inference, list comprehensions, and so on. The third observation which I find very interesting is how much Python and modern Lisps/Schemes do have in common. If one has a close look, the extend of this convergence is really astonishing. Here are some things that modern Lisps like SBCL, Schemes and functional languages on the one hand side, and Python3 do have in common: * a Read-Eval-Print Loop (REPL) * strong dynamic typing * automatic memory management * memory safety * exceptions * a wide choice of built-in data types: lists, strings, vectors, arrays, dictionaries / hash maps, tuples, sets * keyword arguments and optional arguments in functions * handling of names in scopes and names spaces * closures and lambda functions * list comprehensions * pattern matching (limited support for tuples and lists in Python) * Unicode strings * arbitrarily long integers * complex numbers * rational numbers * number type are part of a hierarchical type hierarchy (numeric tower) * empty sequences, containers and strings are logically false * support for threads (but no real parallelism in Python) * low-level bit operations (a bit limited in Python) * easy way to call into C code * type annotations * if ... else can be used as an expression * string formatting is a mini language * hexadecimal, octal and binary literals * standard functions for functional programming like map and filter * support for OOP (e.g. by the Common Lisp Object System) * support for asynchronous execution The few remaining distinctions between Lisps and Python are: 1. Lisps use parentheses to determine scope, while Python uses indentation and white space. 2. Lisps usually compile either to native code or to JIT-compiled byte code, while standard Python uses interpreted byte code. 3. Python does not support true parallel execution within the same process. 4. Lisps have of course the typical macro system which, for example, allows to define new control constructs, while Python does not have macros. 5. Lisps and Schemes have with conditions, restarts, and continuations some unique way to handle errors and manipulate the control flow (see http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/beyond-exception-handling-conditions-and-restarts.html http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/beyond-exception-handling-co... ) So, what I find really interesting is that for example Common Lisp, which was standardized first in 1984, has so many features in common with more recent languages - and still much better performance than python: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/python3-java.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/lisp.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/racket-java.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/ocaml-java.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...