16 ms·

PyPy 5.0 Released

284 points by mattip 11y ago

aleksi 11y ago
Why major version change, why 5.0 after 4.0.1?
- involans 11y ago
  The C-FFI is significantly changed. Which means lxml can now be supported.
- mattip 11y ago
  We (PyPy release manager here) adopted a release policy where we update the major version about every three months. Bug fixes, if needed, will be 5.0.1, and 5.1 should be released in a month or so
  - mkesper 11y ago
    Why not use a calendar based scheme then? This differs so much from CPython versioning it's confusing.
  - amenod 11y ago
    Oh no, not Chrome versioning again... And this time not even on an app. :( What you're saying is that major number will change with time, not based on some groundbreaking updates. How am I supposed to know if I should be careful when upgrading from version 12 to version 14? Were there massive changes in between? All I know now is that half a year has gone by since last time I updated. Why would I care about that? Yeah, sure, I can read changelog for _every_ _single_ _library_ _and_ _tool_... Really? </rant> EDIT: other than that, congrats on a new release. ;)
    - jjawssd 11y ago
      http://semver.org/ http://semver.org/ Summary Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
      - takeda 11y ago
        That's what amenod was referring to. The current versioning model is different than semantic versioning model that everyone is used to. Personally I really hate how everyone (especially web browsers) blindly copies what Google comes up with, without putting much thought into it, whether it is UI changes, versioning or behavior changes.
    - true_religion 11y ago
      I don't know what's the issue. PyPy shouldn't have breaking changes. They're targeting Python 2.7.x which is a frozen specification. In the unlikely case that a new release causes code that worked in a previous release to fail, it's simply exposing a bug in either the new or old release.
JelteF 11y ago
I think its a real shame that pypy3 is not updated with the new releases of pypy. It is still on 2.4.0. I understand that the major sponsors of PyPy are interested in the python 2.7, but not updating it for 1.5 years seems like they have abandoned it.
- fijal 11y ago
  I know it does sound a bit bad, but Python 3 is only now catching up. The old PyPy3 that we have is a bit terrible, because it's both old (3.2 only) and slow. Serious push would be necessary in order to get it up to 3.5 and fix the performance problems that we're just not willing to do right now. Once the commercial world catches up to python 3, we will probably too, but people using PyPy are not people who are getting excited to move to python 3, for the most part
  - _muesli 11y ago
    > I know it does sound a bit bad, but Python 3 is only now catching up. Catching up as in PyPy's support for it or as in adoption of the language?
    - fijal 11y ago
      catching up in adoption
  - d0lph 11y ago
    Given that Python 3 is nearing a decade old, it is always astonishing that people are still on 2.
    - fijal 11y ago
      Well, I'm sorry that it does not look like you would want it to look like, but as a pypy dev this is not my battle - we're there to provide a fast version of the mainstream python and mainstream for now means 2.7. If it changes, we'll adapt
AdamN 11y ago
I'd like to use PyPy but all of my new projects are Python3.
yahyaheee 11y ago
Pypy is really cool, and I hope it becomes the default interpreter down the road. However, little py3 support makes me edge away from it for now. Hopefully, all pythons will merge in the near future
- ludamad 11y ago
  The versions cant really merge, there's runtime differences and you don't want to bloat with two of everything
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    I think the GP could be referring to PyPy becoming a replacement for CPython (or incorporated into CPython) as the canonical Python interpreter. It could theoretically happen after for a major release, and it could work out to be beneficial, though I think it's quite some time away if it happens at all.
- toyg 11y ago
  It will never happen, the pypy codebase does not lend itself to the sort of quick evolution and extensibility that CPython delivers. Remember, the original goal of pypy was not "speed", that was a side effect.
  - true_religion 11y ago
    What was the original goal of PyPy, and have they delivered on it?
    - sanxiyn 11y ago
      The original goal, if there was one, was Python implementation implemented in Python. This goal is achieved.
    - 11y ago
Animats 11y ago
What version of CPython does this match? The announcement doesn't say.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  It's 2.7. They had an announcement about the new versioning last fall: http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2015/10/pypy-400-released-jit-with-simd.html http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2015/10/pypy-400-released-jit-w... Also see fijal (one of the core pypy devs) commenting in this thread about the pypy devs not putting much work into supporting Python 3 right now.
fijal 11y ago
Because everyone asked, I gonna clear a few things about PyPy3 support, please keep the comments civil. * We are not against working on Python 3 - it just happens that there is a lot of interest these days in things like numerics, warmup improvements and C extensions that we want to focus on. * We essentially exhausted Py3k pot. I personally think it delivered what it promised, despite being short on the funding goals. It's crazy what level of expectations people have with crowdfunding - it's really difficult to find someone to deliver a big, multi-year project for 60k, even outside the states. * We're closely watching py3k adoption - since we're always a few releases behind, we'll probably do a 3.5 after CPython 3.6 is out, but it all depends on good will of volunteers, who I have no control over. * Money can easily change focus, but it would need to be a significant enough amount to actually commit to delivering a fast and compliant PyPy 3.5, not 5 or 10k I hope this clear some things up, those opinions are my own and not necesarilly represent everybody in the pypy project EDIT: there is just over 8k USD left in the py3k pot. At $60 USD/h (official SFC rate) it's 146h. That's not enough to even fix the inefficiencies in the current version. We hope to use it to get to version 3.3
- _muesli 11y ago
  Is the plan to go straight to 3.5 after 3.3? Why not start a fund for 3.5 (or whatever is next)? What exactly are the inefficiencies in PyPy3?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- e12e 11y ago
  Thank you so much for taking the time to comment on this. I have very little vested in (any) python (distribution) - but would love to see "real" python3-support in pypy. As the sibling comment mentions: Maybe now is the time to try for another funding run for py3 support? A lot of frameworks and libraries have been ported, and a lot of new code is being written for py3. Perhaps there'd also be real interest from people that now look at pypy as "just" "performance enhancement for legacy py2" to see py3 on the pypy platform? In my personal opinion the speed gains of pypy aren't really all that interesting (other than perhaps, in the sense that it enables more code in python rather than c etc). But rpython+pypy as a framework for language development in general, and as a host for python in particular (along with the work on cffi) are really great aspects of pypy. And while anyone can get rolling with rpython and implement their own toy prolog/brainfuck/whatever -- other benefits from running python on pypy will remain out of reach for those that for various reasons are targeting py3. Then, maybe we could do another funding run to get mercurial ported to py3, later ;-) At any rate, I love the work that is being done on pypy, and I certainly think it doesn't make sense to devout resources to py3 "just because new"; I believe free software development works best when driven by stakeholders. But I think the fact that "pypy doesn't really work for py3 also drives some people away from pypy that might otherwise contribute in various ways to help push py3 support further.
gaze 11y ago
How is numpy doing? How about the sandbox?
psandersen 11y ago
Good to see PyPy progressing. I mainly use Scikit Learn, theano, numpy and pandas; is PyPy able to work with the above, and likely to give any speedups at this stage?
- tavert 11y ago
  Numpy support is improving but incomplete, see http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2015/02/linalg-support-in-pypynumpy.html http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2015/02/linalg-support-in-pypyn... - and the performance is not going to be any better than stock numpy with CPython. If your code spends all its time in C extensions, PyPy doesn't buy you anything since its API compatibility layer is slow and incomplete. You should probably look into Julia.
wyldfire 11y ago
Well, great job, team! I get a free speedup for my non-numpy/scipy projects and that's flipping awesome. The 2.7 and 3.2 support is just fine for my needs. Your focus on the C API emulation seems totally appropriate to me. If numpy and friends worked well on pypy, IMO there'd be little reason left to use CPython.
rafinha 11y ago
no numpy, not interested ... will check again next version.
BuckRogers 11y ago
Wow, a ton of crying here on Python3 support. Short sweet answer: patches welcome. Get to work. Or, donate your money to the authors so they'll do it for you.

PyPy 5.0 Released

284 points by mattip 11y ago

aleksi 11y ago

Why major version change, why 5.0 after 4.0.1?

involans 11y ago
The C-FFI is significantly changed. Which means lxml can now be supported.
mattip 11y ago
We (PyPy release manager here) adopted a release policy where we update the major version about every three months. Bug fixes, if needed, will be 5.0.1, and 5.1 should be released in a month or so
- mkesper 11y ago
  Why not use a calendar based scheme then? This differs so much from CPython versioning it's confusing.
- amenod 11y ago
  Oh no, not Chrome versioning again... And this time not even on an app. :( What you're saying is that major number will change with time, not based on some groundbreaking updates. How am I supposed to know if I should be careful when upgrading from version 12 to version 14? Were there massive changes in between? All I know now is that half a year has gone by since last time I updated. Why would I care about that? Yeah, sure, I can read changelog for _every_ _single_ _library_ _and_ _tool_... Really? </rant> EDIT: other than that, congrats on a new release. ;)
  - jjawssd 11y ago
    http://semver.org/ http://semver.org/ Summary Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
    - takeda 11y ago
      That's what amenod was referring to. The current versioning model is different than semantic versioning model that everyone is used to. Personally I really hate how everyone (especially web browsers) blindly copies what Google comes up with, without putting much thought into it, whether it is UI changes, versioning or behavior changes.
  - true_religion 11y ago
    I don't know what's the issue. PyPy shouldn't have breaking changes. They're targeting Python 2.7.x which is a frozen specification. In the unlikely case that a new release causes code that worked in a previous release to fail, it's simply exposing a bug in either the new or old release.

JelteF 11y ago

I think its a real shame that pypy3 is not updated with the new releases of pypy. It is still on 2.4.0. I understand that the major sponsors of PyPy are interested in the python 2.7, but not updating it for 1.5 years seems like they have abandoned it.

fijal 11y ago
I know it does sound a bit bad, but Python 3 is only now catching up. The old PyPy3 that we have is a bit terrible, because it's both old (3.2 only) and slow. Serious push would be necessary in order to get it up to 3.5 and fix the performance problems that we're just not willing to do right now. Once the commercial world catches up to python 3, we will probably too, but people using PyPy are not people who are getting excited to move to python 3, for the most part
- _muesli 11y ago
  > I know it does sound a bit bad, but Python 3 is only now catching up. Catching up as in PyPy's support for it or as in adoption of the language?
  - fijal 11y ago
    catching up in adoption
- d0lph 11y ago
  Given that Python 3 is nearing a decade old, it is always astonishing that people are still on 2.
  - fijal 11y ago
    Well, I'm sorry that it does not look like you would want it to look like, but as a pypy dev this is not my battle - we're there to provide a fast version of the mainstream python and mainstream for now means 2.7. If it changes, we'll adapt

AdamN 11y ago

I'd like to use PyPy but all of my new projects are Python3.

yahyaheee 11y ago

Pypy is really cool, and I hope it becomes the default interpreter down the road. However, little py3 support makes me edge away from it for now. Hopefully, all pythons will merge in the near future

ludamad 11y ago
The versions cant really merge, there's runtime differences and you don't want to bloat with two of everything
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  I think the GP could be referring to PyPy becoming a replacement for CPython (or incorporated into CPython) as the canonical Python interpreter. It could theoretically happen after for a major release, and it could work out to be beneficial, though I think it's quite some time away if it happens at all.
toyg 11y ago
It will never happen, the pypy codebase does not lend itself to the sort of quick evolution and extensibility that CPython delivers. Remember, the original goal of pypy was not "speed", that was a side effect.
- true_religion 11y ago
  What was the original goal of PyPy, and have they delivered on it?
  - sanxiyn 11y ago
    The original goal, if there was one, was Python implementation implemented in Python. This goal is achieved.
  - 11y ago

Animats 11y ago

What version of CPython does this match? The announcement doesn't say.

maxerickson 11y ago
It's 2.7. They had an announcement about the new versioning last fall: http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2015/10/pypy-400-released-jit-with-simd.html http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2015/10/pypy-400-released-jit-w... Also see fijal (one of the core pypy devs) commenting in this thread about the pypy devs not putting much work into supporting Python 3 right now.

fijal 11y ago

Because everyone asked, I gonna clear a few things about PyPy3 support, please keep the comments civil. * We are not against working on Python 3 - it just happens that there is a lot of interest these days in things like numerics, warmup improvements and C extensions that we want to focus on. * We essentially exhausted Py3k pot. I personally think it delivered what it promised, despite being short on the funding goals. It's crazy what level of expectations people have with crowdfunding - it's really difficult to find someone to deliver a big, multi-year project for 60k, even outside the states. * We're closely watching py3k adoption - since we're always a few releases behind, we'll probably do a 3.5 after CPython 3.6 is out, but it all depends on good will of volunteers, who I have no control over. * Money can easily change focus, but it would need to be a significant enough amount to actually commit to delivering a fast and compliant PyPy 3.5, not 5 or 10k I hope this clear some things up, those opinions are my own and not necesarilly represent everybody in the pypy project EDIT: there is just over 8k USD left in the py3k pot. At $60 USD/h (official SFC rate) it's 146h. That's not enough to even fix the inefficiencies in the current version. We hope to use it to get to version 3.3

_muesli 11y ago
Is the plan to go straight to 3.5 after 3.3? Why not start a fund for 3.5 (or whatever is next)? What exactly are the inefficiencies in PyPy3?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
e12e 11y ago
Thank you so much for taking the time to comment on this. I have very little vested in (any) python (distribution) - but would love to see "real" python3-support in pypy. As the sibling comment mentions: Maybe now is the time to try for another funding run for py3 support? A lot of frameworks and libraries have been ported, and a lot of new code is being written for py3. Perhaps there'd also be real interest from people that now look at pypy as "just" "performance enhancement for legacy py2" to see py3 on the pypy platform? In my personal opinion the speed gains of pypy aren't really all that interesting (other than perhaps, in the sense that it enables more code in python rather than c etc). But rpython+pypy as a framework for language development in general, and as a host for python in particular (along with the work on cffi) are really great aspects of pypy. And while anyone can get rolling with rpython and implement their own toy prolog/brainfuck/whatever -- other benefits from running python on pypy will remain out of reach for those that for various reasons are targeting py3. Then, maybe we could do another funding run to get mercurial ported to py3, later ;-) At any rate, I love the work that is being done on pypy, and I certainly think it doesn't make sense to devout resources to py3 "just because new"; I believe free software development works best when driven by stakeholders. But I think the fact that "pypy doesn't really work for py3 also drives some people away from pypy that might otherwise contribute in various ways to help push py3 support further.

gaze 11y ago

How is numpy doing? How about the sandbox?

psandersen 11y ago

Good to see PyPy progressing. I mainly use Scikit Learn, theano, numpy and pandas; is PyPy able to work with the above, and likely to give any speedups at this stage?

tavert 11y ago
Numpy support is improving but incomplete, see http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2015/02/linalg-support-in-pypynumpy.html http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2015/02/linalg-support-in-pypyn... - and the performance is not going to be any better than stock numpy with CPython. If your code spends all its time in C extensions, PyPy doesn't buy you anything since its API compatibility layer is slow and incomplete. You should probably look into Julia.

wyldfire 11y ago

Well, great job, team! I get a free speedup for my non-numpy/scipy projects and that's flipping awesome. The 2.7 and 3.2 support is just fine for my needs. Your focus on the C API emulation seems totally appropriate to me. If numpy and friends worked well on pypy, IMO there'd be little reason left to use CPython.

rafinha 11y ago

no numpy, not interested ... will check again next version.

BuckRogers 11y ago

Wow, a ton of crying here on Python3 support. Short sweet answer: patches welcome. Get to work. Or, donate your money to the authors so they'll do it for you.