4 ms·

The only discussion I can find about this on python-dev/python-ideas: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/thread/RDXLCH22T2EZDRCBM6ZYYI

by oefrha 6y ago

The only discussion I can find about this on python-dev/python-ideas: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/thread/RDXLCH22T2EZDRCBM6ZYYIUTBWQVVVWH/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/... (Mark Shannon has been a core dev since 2018-05-15: https://devguide.python.org/developers/ https://devguide.python.org/developers/ though his involvement dates back to 2011 according to git log.)

ebg13 6y ago
I hope that discussion thread continues, because so far there's some really juicy sass happening in there. > > 1. I already have working code for the first stage. > I don't mean to be negative, or hostile, but this sounds like you are saying "I have a patch for Python that will make it 1.5 times faster, but you will never see it unless you pay me!" and > Where is your working code for the first stage?
- duckerude 6y ago
  His response: > I believe that's how business works ;) > I have this thing, e.g an iPhone, if you want it you must pay me. > I think that speeding CPython 50% is worth a few hundred iPhones. I wonder if he considered publishing it under a restrictive license that doesn't allow real world use. Then people could scrutinize his claims but there would still be an incentive to pay up for him to relicense it.
  - remote_phone 6y ago
    Releasing it before payment would be an insanely bad idea. 50k is about 3 months worth of a single FAANG developers base salary. It’s well worth it for someone to pay for the code.
    - nlpx 6y ago
      There are many other developers who have made huge contributions and have not asked for money. But in the new corporate Python world this might be the logical conclusion. The losers are the people who made Python what it is today, for free.
      - xapata 6y ago
        Maybe. Guido probably got some Google and Dropbox shares, so I'll bet he's not unhappy with the results of his work.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        >The losers are the people who made Python what it is today, for free. Why are they "losers"? Did they sign any contract that something is owned to them? They did it for fun/personal reasons/ideology, and what they created is used by millions. If they wanted to get paid for doing it, they could very well have had as well - several core python contributors have worked in large companies doing Python (including core Python) work, most famous of all Guido.
        ybhx 6y ago
        Not a core developer, but part of my job at my company is to follow CPython development very closely. I don't see the pattern that the core contributors who work for large companies do important work. A lot of it is churn and minor patches. Most important work appears to have been done by people who contribute a large chunk of code and then often leave. Or by people who don't work for large companies but did a lot of useful bug fixes.
    - duckerude 6y ago
      The parties most likely to pay would still have reason to pay. The PSF couldn't merge the code until it has the right license. Large tech companies like Google wouldn't be willing to use the code until it has the right license. If releasing the code under "look, don't touch" terms helps convince them that paying is worth it then that seems like a good idea.
  - sk2020 6y ago
    He sounds like a grifter. Why not release this super-dooper Python interpreter under a proprietary license? Just have people pay $1000 for it. If it works, then it’s a steal for people who use Python for business. “Well, you have to take me at my word and pay me first” is highly suspect. I’ll use PyPy, thanks.
sippingjippers 6y ago
edit: whups, wrong Mark :) I was thinking of Mark Hammond, not Mark Shannon
bratao 6y ago
He, Inada Naoki and Victor Stinner on the optimization front are some developers that are capable of pulling a JIT of CPython. This is something that I feel that Python need to do to keep the relevance. .Net Core, Rust and GoLang are examples of modern languages that deliver on the performance front. I love Python and it is what use everyday. But very often I feel the need to a better code generation. Numba and Cython feels like a glue. PyPy it is slow with extensions, and this is a huge part of Python ecosystem. Although HPy (https://github.com/hpyproject/hpy https://github.com/hpyproject/hpy) is trying to change this. I feel that this is a must to Python, and would love to contribute money to this task.
- oefrha 6y ago
  To extend what you said a bit: PyPy is not only slow with extensions, it's also massively slower for running short-lived code that isn't repeated much, which is precisely the scenario of many if not most command line tools written in Python. Although I'm not sure there are enough people concerned about Python's performance in this scenario. And yeah, I would be happy to pitch in too if CPython can be 50% faster reliably. It only takes 500 people each pitching in $100 to reach $50k. Edit: somehow got $50k etched in mind when it says $500k. That’s more difficult from individual funding.
  - dr_zoidberg 6y ago
    OTOH, $2M is a sneeze for large corporations. I totally understand why they want to push community funding, but I wonder if they're open to having corporate sponsors or something along those lines. The idea would be "yes, you pay the bill, but you don't get to push an agenda with this".
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  It’s a chicken and egg situation. If Python weren’t so slow, there wouldn’t be such a heavy reliance on C extensions in the ecosystem, and consequently it would be easier to optimize CPython and PyPy because there would be less at stake with respect to breaking the ecosystem. Not only that, but lots of other things get better if C-extensions go away: much less need for executable project files which dramatically improves package manager performance (no need to recursively download a package and run setup.py to determine the next level of dependencies just to build the dependency tree), packaging gets dramatically easier (C projects have no standard reproducible build system so every C project including C extension projects must have its own package recipe and it’s often impractical to support more than a handful of target systems), etc. Hpy appears to be the right approach to fixing this, but there needs to be a concerted effort to migrate the ecosystem toward it and then deprecate the old expansive interface. And then at some point in the distant future we can expect things to be as nice as other ecosystems are today.

by oefrha 6y ago

ebg13 6y ago

I hope that discussion thread continues, because so far there's some really juicy sass happening in there. > > 1. I already have working code for the first stage. > I don't mean to be negative, or hostile, but this sounds like you are saying "I have a patch for Python that will make it 1.5 times faster, but you will never see it unless you pay me!" and > Where is your working code for the first stage?

duckerude 6y ago
His response: > I believe that's how business works ;) > I have this thing, e.g an iPhone, if you want it you must pay me. > I think that speeding CPython 50% is worth a few hundred iPhones. I wonder if he considered publishing it under a restrictive license that doesn't allow real world use. Then people could scrutinize his claims but there would still be an incentive to pay up for him to relicense it.
- remote_phone 6y ago
  Releasing it before payment would be an insanely bad idea. 50k is about 3 months worth of a single FAANG developers base salary. It’s well worth it for someone to pay for the code.
  - nlpx 6y ago
    There are many other developers who have made huge contributions and have not asked for money. But in the new corporate Python world this might be the logical conclusion. The losers are the people who made Python what it is today, for free.
    - xapata 6y ago
      Maybe. Guido probably got some Google and Dropbox shares, so I'll bet he's not unhappy with the results of his work.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >The losers are the people who made Python what it is today, for free. Why are they "losers"? Did they sign any contract that something is owned to them? They did it for fun/personal reasons/ideology, and what they created is used by millions. If they wanted to get paid for doing it, they could very well have had as well - several core python contributors have worked in large companies doing Python (including core Python) work, most famous of all Guido.
      - ybhx 6y ago
        Not a core developer, but part of my job at my company is to follow CPython development very closely. I don't see the pattern that the core contributors who work for large companies do important work. A lot of it is churn and minor patches. Most important work appears to have been done by people who contribute a large chunk of code and then often leave. Or by people who don't work for large companies but did a lot of useful bug fixes.
  - duckerude 6y ago
    The parties most likely to pay would still have reason to pay. The PSF couldn't merge the code until it has the right license. Large tech companies like Google wouldn't be willing to use the code until it has the right license. If releasing the code under "look, don't touch" terms helps convince them that paying is worth it then that seems like a good idea.
- sk2020 6y ago
  He sounds like a grifter. Why not release this super-dooper Python interpreter under a proprietary license? Just have people pay $1000 for it. If it works, then it’s a steal for people who use Python for business. “Well, you have to take me at my word and pay me first” is highly suspect. I’ll use PyPy, thanks.

sippingjippers 6y ago

edit: whups, wrong Mark :) I was thinking of Mark Hammond, not Mark Shannon

bratao 6y ago

He, Inada Naoki and Victor Stinner on the optimization front are some developers that are capable of pulling a JIT of CPython. This is something that I feel that Python need to do to keep the relevance. .Net Core, Rust and GoLang are examples of modern languages that deliver on the performance front. I love Python and it is what use everyday. But very often I feel the need to a better code generation. Numba and Cython feels like a glue. PyPy it is slow with extensions, and this is a huge part of Python ecosystem. Although HPy (https://github.com/hpyproject/hpy https://github.com/hpyproject/hpy) is trying to change this. I feel that this is a must to Python, and would love to contribute money to this task.

oefrha 6y ago
To extend what you said a bit: PyPy is not only slow with extensions, it's also massively slower for running short-lived code that isn't repeated much, which is precisely the scenario of many if not most command line tools written in Python. Although I'm not sure there are enough people concerned about Python's performance in this scenario. And yeah, I would be happy to pitch in too if CPython can be 50% faster reliably. It only takes 500 people each pitching in $100 to reach $50k. Edit: somehow got $50k etched in mind when it says $500k. That’s more difficult from individual funding.
- dr_zoidberg 6y ago
  OTOH, $2M is a sneeze for large corporations. I totally understand why they want to push community funding, but I wonder if they're open to having corporate sponsors or something along those lines. The idea would be "yes, you pay the bill, but you don't get to push an agenda with this".
throwaway894345 6y ago
It’s a chicken and egg situation. If Python weren’t so slow, there wouldn’t be such a heavy reliance on C extensions in the ecosystem, and consequently it would be easier to optimize CPython and PyPy because there would be less at stake with respect to breaking the ecosystem. Not only that, but lots of other things get better if C-extensions go away: much less need for executable project files which dramatically improves package manager performance (no need to recursively download a package and run setup.py to determine the next level of dependencies just to build the dependency tree), packaging gets dramatically easier (C projects have no standard reproducible build system so every C project including C extension projects must have its own package recipe and it’s often impractical to support more than a handful of target systems), etc. Hpy appears to be the right approach to fixing this, but there needs to be a concerted effort to migrate the ecosystem toward it and then deprecate the old expansive interface. And then at some point in the distant future we can expect things to be as nice as other ecosystems are today.