[rbanffy]

A lot of these notes follow a similar pattern: we start with Python, get a working program, and then rewrite it in X with a huge performance gain.

That’s fair. We use the easy language to get a correct program, then we use the “hard” language to get a fast program, now that we know what a correct one looks like.

This is the key here. If you try to start with the lower level language, you might spend a much longer time getting to the correct program.

It’s much easier to optimise a program that’s working than to debug one that isn’t.

[pjmlp]

Or just use something that offers both from the start.

One day, Python will finally catch up with 1990's Smalltalk, SELF, Lisp, Dylan and Scheme.

[glass-z13]

What would you recommend that gives both worlds? You can learn most of the syntax of python/go to a usable level in about a day.

[pjmlp]

Go I agree, as for Python using it on and off since version 1.6, that would be a very very basic knowledge after one day.

Since you mention Go, placing dynamic and static on the same basket.

Common Lisp, Scheme, Raket, Clojure, Scala, Kotlin, F#, OCaml, Pharo, JavaScript/Typescript.

There are other candidates, only listing the ones with good out of the box REPL experience, JIT/AOT toolchains in the reference implementation, and not going crazy with their type systems for strong typing.

[tejinderss]

One of the strengths python has is its ecosystem. All the languages you listed don’t come close to python’s ecosystem except perhaps TypeScript/nodeJS (whose quality of ecosystem is questionable although improving in recent times).

[mrguyorama]

>This is the key here

No, this was very much NOT my point. The java version of my program was just as easy if not easier to write, precisely because I COULD write the naive version and trust that it would work out fine performance wise.

Hell, the java version didn't even require the extra library (Pillow/PIL) that python required!