3 ms·

> We're past that point. PyPy is the future. CPython is the past. CPython is the past and is the present, and the future you can't predict. However, if you try

> We're past that point. PyPy is the future. CPython is the past. CPython is the past and is the present, and the future you can't predict. However, if you try to extrapolate, you should perhaps consider as much historical context as possible. For instance, why is Python what it is? Is it speed? I think it is the accessibility of language syntax, design and features. CPython is the base of this language evolution, and PyPy is improving just speed. So I would extrapolate CPython to always be more popular. Go exists because someone at Google wanted to make better C and C++, a statically typed language. It doesn't have much to do with Python. Google always preferred C++ and Java to python because of static typing, not just because of speed. Overall, I think it's a mistake to fixate so much on speed of execution, when often times speed of development is considered more important. This niche is never going away, despite of how hard some people hammer square pegs in round holes.

BuckRogers 11y ago
>Overall, I think it's a mistake to fixate so much on speed of execution, when often times speed of development is considered more important. This niche is never going away, despite of how hard some people hammer square pegs in round holes. That's the point to PyPy. You get fast speed of development and fast CPU performance. Best of every world. That's why we use it and not CPython. It's already bigger than you think.
- Demiurge 11y ago
  >That's the point to PyPy. You get fast speed of development and fast CPU performance. Best of every world. That's why we use it and not CPython. It's already bigger than you think. What you use it for, where you need the speed and don't have a C based module to rely on? I don't mind having a bit more speed for 'free', but every time I tried, pypy hasn't been hassle free due to some module compatibility, and yet pure python code has never been a bottle neck. I have been using Python for +10 years. Anyway, the above question is for curiosity sake, it doesn't change the point that CPython is where new language features are added. If Guido adopts pypy tomorrow, I would be happy, but otherwise, it will always try to catch up, so I don't see how it can be the future.
  - BuckRogers 11y ago
    >the above question is for curiosity sake, it doesn't change the point that CPython is where new language features are added. So far. Everything changes the moment the PyPy team announces they're an official continuation of Python2. They can easily integrate more 3rd party backported features from 3->2 into PyPy4. Guido doesn't really matter there. That said, it doesn't take that to get me to use PyPy. The speed improvement is a dream come true. Writing pure Python is much more preferable to me than writing a C extension thus PyPy is the present and future for most of us.
    - Demiurge 11y ago
      Well, that would be kind of hostile of PyPy, I really don't see that happening. I'm still quite curious what is your use case for PyPy where it is such a god send? I don't enjoy C, but it's just been so rare that I had to Cython or C anything, things are quite well optimized in the ecosystem.
      - BuckRogers 11y ago
        Why would it be hostile? There's tons of Python2 users out there like me that need support and a secure path forward with Python, and my code. PyPy didn't create that situation, CPython did. They're just filling a market need. It may be opportunistic, but it's hardly hostile. If anything was hostile it was CPython3, but I'd say neither would be "hostile" moves. Everyone should always act in their own best interests. Especially users like myself. The CPython team did what they felt was in theirs. I do what I feel is mine. PyPy should do the same, not be fearful of some toxic, "hostile" accusation. The godsend is that I don't have to worry about CPU performance being a limiting factor at all. That's a big deal and reduces my hardware needs to do the same amount of work. My VPS is hardly overpowered, and I like it that way because it's cheap for my projects. :) CPython only exacerbates hardware issues. It's very nice to have a simple interpreter to fall back on, but at this point in time I think most dynamic languages need to be on a JIT like PyPy. It's just too good and I can't wait for the STM branch to be merged into PyPy4. No more GIL for those of us using it.
  - 11y ago

BuckRogers 11y ago

>Overall, I think it's a mistake to fixate so much on speed of execution, when often times speed of development is considered more important. This niche is never going away, despite of how hard some people hammer square pegs in round holes. That's the point to PyPy. You get fast speed of development and fast CPU performance. Best of every world. That's why we use it and not CPython. It's already bigger than you think.

Demiurge 11y ago
>That's the point to PyPy. You get fast speed of development and fast CPU performance. Best of every world. That's why we use it and not CPython. It's already bigger than you think. What you use it for, where you need the speed and don't have a C based module to rely on? I don't mind having a bit more speed for 'free', but every time I tried, pypy hasn't been hassle free due to some module compatibility, and yet pure python code has never been a bottle neck. I have been using Python for +10 years. Anyway, the above question is for curiosity sake, it doesn't change the point that CPython is where new language features are added. If Guido adopts pypy tomorrow, I would be happy, but otherwise, it will always try to catch up, so I don't see how it can be the future.
- BuckRogers 11y ago
  >the above question is for curiosity sake, it doesn't change the point that CPython is where new language features are added. So far. Everything changes the moment the PyPy team announces they're an official continuation of Python2. They can easily integrate more 3rd party backported features from 3->2 into PyPy4. Guido doesn't really matter there. That said, it doesn't take that to get me to use PyPy. The speed improvement is a dream come true. Writing pure Python is much more preferable to me than writing a C extension thus PyPy is the present and future for most of us.
  - Demiurge 11y ago
    Well, that would be kind of hostile of PyPy, I really don't see that happening. I'm still quite curious what is your use case for PyPy where it is such a god send? I don't enjoy C, but it's just been so rare that I had to Cython or C anything, things are quite well optimized in the ecosystem.
    - BuckRogers 11y ago
      Why would it be hostile? There's tons of Python2 users out there like me that need support and a secure path forward with Python, and my code. PyPy didn't create that situation, CPython did. They're just filling a market need. It may be opportunistic, but it's hardly hostile. If anything was hostile it was CPython3, but I'd say neither would be "hostile" moves. Everyone should always act in their own best interests. Especially users like myself. The CPython team did what they felt was in theirs. I do what I feel is mine. PyPy should do the same, not be fearful of some toxic, "hostile" accusation. The godsend is that I don't have to worry about CPU performance being a limiting factor at all. That's a big deal and reduces my hardware needs to do the same amount of work. My VPS is hardly overpowered, and I like it that way because it's cheap for my projects. :) CPython only exacerbates hardware issues. It's very nice to have a simple interpreter to fall back on, but at this point in time I think most dynamic languages need to be on a JIT like PyPy. It's just too good and I can't wait for the STM branch to be merged into PyPy4. No more GIL for those of us using it.
- 11y ago