[guenthert]

Not sure about that. I rather think it's the very dynamic nature of Python (e.g. at run time one can add members to classes) which limits performance gains achievable by compilation. Iirc PyPy got to some five fold performance gain against CPython.

Common Lisp, as an example, makes some deliberate flexibility (and elegance) vs. performance trade-offs. I'd think to speed Python up more than PyPy could, one would have to sacrifice some of its features (some of those might not be all that popular or even desirable).

Nah, Python has its place. If its performance isn't adequate for the problem at hand, rewrite the bottlenecks in C++ and be done. LLMs should make that easy, no?

[pjmlp]

The dynamic excuse always misses out fully dynamic languages like Smalltalk, Self, among others have achieved, and how it got further exploited into JavaScript engines.

However CPython isn't even half way there to either Papyrus or GraalPy.

The community attitude to rewrite into C, C++, Rust, Zig, whatever, is exactly why Python will never be like other dynamic languages, and the dynamism excuse will always be used.

Thankfully at least GPU vendors see it otherwise, so if nothing else at least it will get JITs that speak GPU machine code.

[BoingBoomTschak]

> e.g. at run time one can add members to classes

Which is something that can be done in CLOS, though. And in a much more thought out fashion, as usual with the CLOS/MOP, cf https://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/04_cf...