3 ms·
2 seconds on my phone. This is new tech, I'm sure it'll get optimized. JS engines have thousands of man-hours into them.
by gtirloni 4y ago
2 seconds on my phone. This is new tech, I'm sure it'll get optimized. JS engines have thousands of man-hours into them.
- bb88 4y agoYeah I'm not so sure. Browsers need to ship python natively, and then we can just drop wasm and run python directly with a pythonic interface on the DOM.
- ceeplusplus 4y agoNot sure that will happen given Python's resistance to incorporating a JIT. The only reason Javascript has acceptable performance is because there's been an absolutely insane amount of work on v8.
- selcuka 4y ago> Python's resistance to incorporating a JIT Python (the spec) is not against a JIT. Only CPython (the interpreter) is, which is a reference implementation. Other implementations such as PyPy use JIT. I guess Jython can also use the JIT features of the underlying JVM.
- ceeplusplus 4y agoRight, but other implementations are missing a lot of key libraries which rely on the CPython->C bridge.
- vips7L 4y agoGraalpython would be fast enough especially when C extensions aren't involved in the browser. Though I'm sure that comes with it's own complexities.