When asked - on the mailing list, on google buzz, or anywhere else, Collin and Jeffery and others have been very open about its status. They've always dealt us

When asked - on the mailing list, on google buzz, or anywhere else, Collin and Jeffery and others have been very open about its status. They've always dealt us (as the community) a fair hand about the status of the project, and the path moving forward. Your indulgence in catchiness is annoying, as it will be echoed (and it already has been) all over the place with breathless drama "Look! It's Dead!" when, despite languishing, the code is still there, still functional, but starved of resources. The editorializing is frustrating, misleading and overall, I think harmful. As for why it's still relevant: Easy, it's the only currently visible way of moving the CPython interpreter forward from an evolution standpoint. US does show a series of speedups, one thats useful for CPython. To quote: "A JIT compiler is an extremely flexible tool, and we have by no means exhausted its full potential. Unladen Swallow maintains a list of yet-to-be-implemented performance optimizations [49] that the team has not yet had time to fully implement. Examples:" - http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3146/ http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3146/ I would recommend: if you want to move anything forward, or help, rather than make posts like this, jump in on the http://svn.python.org/view/python/branches/py3k-jit/ http://svn.python.org/view/python/branches/py3k-jit/ Yes; part of the reason the current interpreter is limited is due to backwards compatibility, but I'd rather have a limited JIT with some performance gains then none at all. The fundamental issue is that Jeffery, Collin and Reid - the founding three are "off in the woods" - and they're the only ones who understand the code enough to move it forward right now. PyPy's success(es) are orthogonal to the evolution of the CPython interpreter code base.