5 ms·
Probably because it was 2.7 only, and only 10% faster on Dropbox's code. https://blog.pyston.org/2017/01/31/pyston-0-6-1-released-and-future-plans/ https://blo
by phonon 8y ago
Probably because it was 2.7 only, and only 10% faster on Dropbox's code.
https://blog.pyston.org/2017/01/31/pyston-0-6-1-released-and-future-plans/ https://blog.pyston.org/2017/01/31/pyston-0-6-1-released-and...
- chrisseaton 8y agoI'm surprised 10% wasn't enough - 10% bottom-line improvement in programming language implementation is normally massive. Twitter is singing from the roof-tops about 10% improvement in Java performance from the new Graal JIT compiler.
- ummonk 8y agoI would imagine that for code that is performance sensitive enough that a 10% improvement matters, they would be porting to a language with saner performance instead?
- phonon 8y agoPyPy is already way better than that, and has a Python 3.5 implementation.
- pmart123 8y agoI'm by no means an expert on the subject, but isn't there an advantage to having a JIT compiler use LLVM? On another note, I believe one thing that has been problematic for pypy adoption is that it does not automatically work with C extensions or Cython, and generally if someone already had performance issues with CPython, they would have written some C/Cython extensions?
- orf 8y agoPyPy is far more than just 'python with a JIT'. It's a tool that allows you to write an entire interpreter in RPython (a subset of Python) and then have it build a native binary with a free jit compiler included, with the specifics of your language encoded within. The reference implementation for this project is a Python interpreter. It's seriously, seriously cool.
- jsmeaton 8y agoMaybe because 10% on a server is much more valuable than 10% on a client. On a server, you’re paying for that 10%. On a client, you’re not. If it was 10% for nearly free then sure - but maintaining a separate implementation of a language is costly.