4 ms·

First, because CPython had more concerns than what Smalltalk implementations have, so such comparison would be unfair to Python. (See my topmost comment for exa

First, because CPython had more concerns than what Smalltalk implementations have, so such comparison would be unfair to Python. (See my topmost comment for example.) Second, my question was about the possibility that Smalltalk and others were unbearably slow without JIT, so JIT was not a matter of choice for them. I'm not aware of Smalltalk implementations that don't have JIT, so it would be easier to compare Smalltalk with another well-optimized JIT implementation instead---in this case JS.

whizzter 3y ago
Not much in the Python language is categorically worse than features within JS when it comes to JIT creation. My thesis work was on AOT JS compilation, in it I refer to a bunch of experimental Python runtimes, Self,etc and the main issues in all these papers were basically the of same kind. Heck, even PyPy exists and iirc when it comes to the core language is almost entirely compatible (except for code that relies on ref-counting semantics but that code should apparently big fixed anyhow). https://www.pypy.org/compat.html https://www.pypy.org/compat.html The real summary is: CPython is a turd in many ways, the old C api holds it back and the community hasn't put the effort into using cross-implementation compatible C-bindings instead making PyPy or others a second class citizen.