4 ms·

>The usual suspects are the GIL, interpretation, and dynamic typing. All three matter, but none of them is the real story. The real story is that Python is desi

>The usual suspects are the GIL, interpretation, and dynamic typing. All three matter, but none of them is the real story. The real story is that Python is designed to be maximally dynamic -- you can monkey-patch methods at runtime, replace builtins, change a class's inheritance chain while instances exist -- and that design makes it fundamentally hard to optimize. ok I guess the harder question is. Why isn't python as fast as javascript?

12_throw_away 8mo ago
> ok I guess the harder question is. Why isn't python as fast as javascript? Actually there is a pretty easy answer: worldwide, the amount of javascript being evaluated every day is many orders of magnitude higher than the amount of python. The amount of money available for optimizing it has thus been many orders of magnitude higher as well.
- threethirtytwo 8mo ago
  I mean the technical reasons. Because every reason stated in my quote is applicable to JavaScript as well.
- saagarjha 8mo ago
  I don’t think the answer is that easy. Python is typically run on the server and JavaScript is client-side, which means that the incentives are aligned to optimize Python rather than JavaScript. I think investment in each follows and the difference is more that JavaScript runs in an isolated environment with a more flexible runtime.
  - threethirtytwo 8mo ago
    Nah although his answer wasn’t exactly what I’m looking for he’s not wrong. Python is not optimized because on the backend you just switch to another language that’s faster. That’s the economically optimized thing to do. Can’t do that on the frontend.
    - saagarjha 7mo ago
      You can do that these days and I think it's easier honestly
gsnedders 8mo ago
Beyond the economic arguments, there’s a lot in JS that actually makes it a lot easier: almost all of the operators can only return a subset of the types and cannot be overridden (e.g., the binary + operator in JS can only return a string or a number primitive), the existence of like string and number primitives dramatically reduce the amount of dynamic behaviour they can have, only proxy objects can exhibit the same amount of dynamism as arbitrary Python ones (and thus only they pay the performance cost)…
gf000 7mo ago
The more real answer is that python's primary usage is a glue language. It has to be able to interface with various C libraries, and to make the interfaces even more ergonomic, they exposed several internal details on how code is evaluated that libraries make use of (e.g. you can increment/decrement a ref counted python object's counter from C). This pretty much makes it impossible to change many of the internal details, and to significantly optimize it. If we remove this requirement, we get the alternative runtimes and if you check e.g. GraalPy, it has the same order of performance as JS, so your intuition is right. It's just that you have to drop supporting a good chunk of what people use Python for which is obviously a no go for most applications. (Note: GraalPy can actually also run some C libraries and in this case can cross-optimize across python and C!)

12_throw_away 8mo ago

> ok I guess the harder question is. Why isn't python as fast as javascript? Actually there is a pretty easy answer: worldwide, the amount of javascript being evaluated every day is many orders of magnitude higher than the amount of python. The amount of money available for optimizing it has thus been many orders of magnitude higher as well.

threethirtytwo 8mo ago
I mean the technical reasons. Because every reason stated in my quote is applicable to JavaScript as well.
saagarjha 8mo ago
I don’t think the answer is that easy. Python is typically run on the server and JavaScript is client-side, which means that the incentives are aligned to optimize Python rather than JavaScript. I think investment in each follows and the difference is more that JavaScript runs in an isolated environment with a more flexible runtime.
- threethirtytwo 8mo ago
  Nah although his answer wasn’t exactly what I’m looking for he’s not wrong. Python is not optimized because on the backend you just switch to another language that’s faster. That’s the economically optimized thing to do. Can’t do that on the frontend.
  - saagarjha 7mo ago
    You can do that these days and I think it's easier honestly

gsnedders 8mo ago

Beyond the economic arguments, there’s a lot in JS that actually makes it a lot easier: almost all of the operators can only return a subset of the types and cannot be overridden (e.g., the binary + operator in JS can only return a string or a number primitive), the existence of like string and number primitives dramatically reduce the amount of dynamic behaviour they can have, only proxy objects can exhibit the same amount of dynamism as arbitrary Python ones (and thus only they pay the performance cost)…

gf000 7mo ago

The more real answer is that python's primary usage is a glue language. It has to be able to interface with various C libraries, and to make the interfaces even more ergonomic, they exposed several internal details on how code is evaluated that libraries make use of (e.g. you can increment/decrement a ref counted python object's counter from C). This pretty much makes it impossible to change many of the internal details, and to significantly optimize it. If we remove this requirement, we get the alternative runtimes and if you check e.g. GraalPy, it has the same order of performance as JS, so your intuition is right. It's just that you have to drop supporting a good chunk of what people use Python for which is obviously a no go for most applications. (Note: GraalPy can actually also run some C libraries and in this case can cross-optimize across python and C!)