I'm not exactly sure how anything you said supports that CL isn't a dynamic language.
When using SBCL for example, none of CLs dynamic features are restricted from the programmer in any way. So whether it's compiled to native code or not has no bearing at all on how dynamic the language is.
Can you explain to me why a Python compiler couldn't implement optimizations similar to SBCL?
>It's not.
Is Python more powerful than CL in some way that I am not aware of?
I tried to explain that the optimized version of Common Lisp is less dynamic than the non-optimized version. The speed advantage often comes because the compile code is less or not dynamic. Late binding for example makes code slower because of another indirection. An optimizing compiler can remove late binding. The code will be faster, but there might no longer be a runtime lookup of the function anymore.
> When using SBCL for example, none of CLs dynamic features are restricted from the programmer in any way.
Sure, but it will be slower in benchmarks. The excellent benchmark numbers of SBCL is in part a result of being able to cleverly remove dynamic features.
When using SBCL for example, none of CLs dynamic features are restricted from the programmer in any way. So whether it's compiled to native code or not has no bearing at all on how dynamic the language is.
Can you explain to me why a Python compiler couldn't implement optimizations similar to SBCL?
>It's not.
Is Python more powerful than CL in some way that I am not aware of?