3 ms·
Sure - you are piling another transpilation layer on top of already slow Python. Why not just use something closer to the metal: Common Lisp, Scheme, Clojure,
by wrycoder 2y ago
Sure - you are piling another transpilation layer on top of already slow Python.
Why not just use something closer to the metal: Common Lisp, Scheme, Clojure, Racket? Especially, use a compiled language, instead of an interpreter.
- kazinator 2y agoIf I were to guess, it's to be able to use the all the packages in the Python ecosystem, directly. It's for situations in which Python is already a given. In fact, it's probably the case that many Python programmers can't even use this, due to being in a situation in which even the poor syntax is nonnegotiable.
- BeetleB 2y agoI do use Racket. And over half the time I switch to Python because I don't want to author libraries that already exist in Python.
- vindarel 2y agothis 100%. We have some options today to run Python from CL when necessary: https://github.com/digikar99/py4cl2-cffi https://github.com/digikar99/py4cl2-cffi https://github.com/marcoheisig/lang https://github.com/marcoheisig/lang