3 ms·

They do, there have been several high profile projects to make a JIT for python... The problem isn't, that JITs aren't taken seriously - the problem is, that py

They do, there have been several high profile projects to make a JIT for python... The problem isn't, that JITs aren't taken seriously - the problem is, that python isn't designed for a JIT, so it's very hard to get the advantages of using one

pjmlp 8y ago
I am well aware of PyPY and friends. My point is about making JIT a standard feature of CPython. JavaScript, Dylan, Smalltalk, SELF, Common Lisp aren't less dynamic than Python.
- simondanisch 8y ago
  Yeah, I'm just trying to point out, that not much would be won by that. You either need to change the semantic of the language (CPython) or live with a slow JIT for some of the most used features of the language... And changing the semantic of the language is pretty terrible - it fragments your libraries introduces unbreakable borders prohibiting cross package optimizations and extensability, and much worse, CPython is now basically a language that combines the bad stuff of python and C ;) I know, that's a bit too cynical, but coming from a well designed language for JIT (Julia), that's how CPython starts looking to me. You will simply never reach the elegance of a language that was designed from scratch for this. What I want to point out is, that the whole topic is bigger than "JIT my one slow function and make it fast"! A good read about this topic is: http://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/why-numba-and-cython-are-not-substitutes-for-julia/ http://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/why-numba-and-cython-are-...
- simondanisch 8y ago
  And sorry for hijacking your perfectly fine comment - of course it would help python to embrace modern compiler technologies! ;) It's just always a bit maddening to see how much effort and money is spent on creating imense projects for python, just to catch up with Julia - while turning python pretty much into a jitted frankenstein monster, to cover use cases it was never designed for ;)

pjmlp 8y ago

I am well aware of PyPY and friends. My point is about making JIT a standard feature of CPython. JavaScript, Dylan, Smalltalk, SELF, Common Lisp aren't less dynamic than Python.

simondanisch 8y ago
Yeah, I'm just trying to point out, that not much would be won by that. You either need to change the semantic of the language (CPython) or live with a slow JIT for some of the most used features of the language... And changing the semantic of the language is pretty terrible - it fragments your libraries introduces unbreakable borders prohibiting cross package optimizations and extensability, and much worse, CPython is now basically a language that combines the bad stuff of python and C ;) I know, that's a bit too cynical, but coming from a well designed language for JIT (Julia), that's how CPython starts looking to me. You will simply never reach the elegance of a language that was designed from scratch for this. What I want to point out is, that the whole topic is bigger than "JIT my one slow function and make it fast"! A good read about this topic is: http://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/why-numba-and-cython-are-not-substitutes-for-julia/ http://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/why-numba-and-cython-are-...
simondanisch 8y ago
And sorry for hijacking your perfectly fine comment - of course it would help python to embrace modern compiler technologies! ;) It's just always a bit maddening to see how much effort and money is spent on creating imense projects for python, just to catch up with Julia - while turning python pretty much into a jitted frankenstein monster, to cover use cases it was never designed for ;)