3 ms·
This is incredibly interesting, and the people working on it are incredibly smart. But I think it's a slight oversell to call this a python 2.7 interpreter. F
by dbecker 14y ago
This is incredibly interesting, and the people working on it are incredibly smart.
But I think it's a slight oversell to call this a python 2.7 interpreter. For instance, most scientific computing code that runs in cpython 2.7 won't run on pypy.
It's impressive from a computer science point of view. But, pypy has a ways to go before I'd call it a python interpreter without adding qualifications.
- fijal 14y agoPyPy is officially sanctioned as python 2.7 interpreter. Cannot run scientific code does not rule it out. This is more a problem on the scientific code being too implementation specific (for good reasons though). This is known to be a problem to a lot of people (including me), however it does not rule pypy as a python 2.7 interpreter (without qualifications).
- dbecker 14y agoMy apologies. I mistakenly lumped C extensions in as an inherent part of python. I was wrong.
- lloeki 14y ago> most scientific computing code that runs in cpython 2.7 won't run on pypy Pure python? or stuff written in/depending on C modules like NumPy? PyPy is supposed to be 2.7 compliant if pure python, while C extension support is still experimental.