3 ms·
At what point do we make a language that’s syntactically identical to Python, but designed from the ground up to have better performance and threading support a
by FridgeSeal 3y ago
At what point do we make a language that’s syntactically identical to Python, but designed from the ground up to have better performance and threading support and just have projects that want performance + Python syntax to that, because clearly the current Python is flailing at multiple goals at once and achieving none of them.
- kmod 3y agoThis has been done! Many times, most recently with Mojo. It sounds like you're the target user but don't use them, so if you're interested you could help them out by telling them specifically how they don't meet your needs
- FridgeSeal 3y agoNah I’ve given up on Python wholesale these days, and don’t operate in AI stuff anymore either, so not a lot of need for any of the current Python specific libs. Basically everything I write for work or hobby is all Rust now , but I’ve written more than enough Python that I’m still interested enough to follow the developments from a distance. :)
- fulafel 3y agoYep. The .NET and JVM versions also had hopes about eventual CPython-overtaking speed back in the day.
- dist-epoch 3y agoThe problem was never the language (see PyPy), but the C-extensions.
- Too 3y agoImagine if one could eliminate the need for C-extensions in the first place.
- Daishiman 3y agoPeople don't want to eliminate the C extensions. People don't want to reimplement working C code, especially when even a "fast" language in the style of python cannot really achieve C speeds. The simple fact is that performance is not a sufficiently important problem for the domain Python works it. At least not important enough to give up its dynamicism.
- devonkim 3y agoSounds like an argument for Starlark perhaps?