8 ms·

PyPy does not really try to do that. CPython is great for a lot of things, small, easy to install on a myriad of platforms and is, after all, Python. PyPy inste

by fijal 12y ago

PyPy does not really try to do that. CPython is great for a lot of things, small, easy to install on a myriad of platforms and is, after all, Python. PyPy instead tries to push what's possible to do with Python as a language and with dynamic language interpreters. You can do real time image processing using only Python with PyPy, now STM, fast numerics in the future etc. The goal is to expand Python ecosystem, not to "replace" CPython.

joelthelion 12y ago
Having multiple competing implementations is hurting the ecosystem, with duplicated work, compatibility problems, etc.
- glibgil 12y ago
  CPython is hurting the ecosystem by being slow. I'll let you in on a little secret. People used to using C, C++, D even Java and C# laugh at the slowness of languages like Python and Ruby. Blah, blah, blah productivity gains. We laugh. We think, "I could write this in Java and go to production with three servers or I could write it in Python and use eleven." People don't like to say it to your face, but Python is often derided and considered to be pretty silly. Oh, and its syntax is like Lego. Neat at first until you want something like a multiline lambda.
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    C, C++, D, Java and C# are hurting the ecosystem by being slow. I'll let you in on a little secret. People used to coding assembly laugh at the slowness of languages like C and C++. Blah, blah, blah productivity gains. We laugh. We think, "I could write this in assembly and go to production on an Arduino or I could write it in C and have to use expensive servers." People don't like to say it to your face, but C is often derided and considered to be pretty silly. Oh, and its syntax is like Lego. Neat at first until you want to understand what something is a pointer to.
    - glibgil 12y ago
      You just said, "I know you are but what am I?" Lame.
      - lelandbatey 12y ago
        What's lame was your unwarranted and childish attack on something you happen to not like. Make a terrible argument, get a terrible response.
        glibgil 12y ago
        It was warranted. CPython needs to be derided and PyPy needs to keep up the good work until Python isn't unreasonably slow. Python should be humiliated into being fast or just go away.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      The difference is that you can achieve similar performance to assembly by writing in those other languages, while you cannot achieve anything close to similar performance with Python. It used to be the assumption that there was a direct tradeoff between performance and convenience/productivity of a programming language. I think newer languages are showing that this doesn't have to be true, at least not to nearly the same degree.
      - ubernostrum 12y ago
        Well, I'd argue that the convenience of C/C++ is so low that nobody should be using them for anything other than toy programs, but that's just me.
  - Igglyboo 12y ago
    Computers are fast, Python has good enough performance for most people now a days.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - lockes5hadow 12y ago
    In most cases I would rather pay for 7 more servers than for the 10,000 extra lines of code your C++ or Java implementation is going to cost me. Hardware is cheap. Engineers are expensive.
- rguillebert 12y ago
  Having just one implementation is hurting the ecosystem by restricting the amount of things you can do with Python
- jerf 12y ago
  Generally speaking, for a language like Python, having only one implementation is considered a bad sign. Anything serious has multiple implementations.
- glynjackson 12y ago
  Rubbish! It is called an open standard for a reason. http://www.toptal.com/python/why-are-there-so-many-pythons http://www.toptal.com/python/why-are-there-so-many-pythons
- duaneb 12y ago
  I don't think this is applicable to python. Only so many developers can work on cpython without stepping on toes. This led to the decision not to have cpython to be an implementation standard, not an experimental language, while pypy led the effort for expanding with a different team of developers. This is a good decision, because there are still more than enough developers to maintain a stable, full-featured cpython that pypy can conform to (to varying degrees). There aren't any competing standard libraries, for instance, and it's made very clear which libraries work on which implementations. Maybe if there were competing implementations to ruby, it would still be popular outside the rails community. But it seems as if the vast majority of ruby core developers work on the mainline implementation, or forks thereof.
- twsted 12y ago
  Really? See Javascript.

by fijal 12y ago

joelthelion 12y ago

Having multiple competing implementations is hurting the ecosystem, with duplicated work, compatibility problems, etc.

glibgil 12y ago
CPython is hurting the ecosystem by being slow. I'll let you in on a little secret. People used to using C, C++, D even Java and C# laugh at the slowness of languages like Python and Ruby. Blah, blah, blah productivity gains. We laugh. We think, "I could write this in Java and go to production with three servers or I could write it in Python and use eleven." People don't like to say it to your face, but Python is often derided and considered to be pretty silly. Oh, and its syntax is like Lego. Neat at first until you want something like a multiline lambda.
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  C, C++, D, Java and C# are hurting the ecosystem by being slow. I'll let you in on a little secret. People used to coding assembly laugh at the slowness of languages like C and C++. Blah, blah, blah productivity gains. We laugh. We think, "I could write this in assembly and go to production on an Arduino or I could write it in C and have to use expensive servers." People don't like to say it to your face, but C is often derided and considered to be pretty silly. Oh, and its syntax is like Lego. Neat at first until you want to understand what something is a pointer to.
  - glibgil 12y ago
    You just said, "I know you are but what am I?" Lame.
    - lelandbatey 12y ago
      What's lame was your unwarranted and childish attack on something you happen to not like. Make a terrible argument, get a terrible response.
      - glibgil 12y ago
        It was warranted. CPython needs to be derided and PyPy needs to keep up the good work until Python isn't unreasonably slow. Python should be humiliated into being fast or just go away.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    The difference is that you can achieve similar performance to assembly by writing in those other languages, while you cannot achieve anything close to similar performance with Python. It used to be the assumption that there was a direct tradeoff between performance and convenience/productivity of a programming language. I think newer languages are showing that this doesn't have to be true, at least not to nearly the same degree.
    - ubernostrum 12y ago
      Well, I'd argue that the convenience of C/C++ is so low that nobody should be using them for anything other than toy programs, but that's just me.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Computers are fast, Python has good enough performance for most people now a days.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- lockes5hadow 12y ago
  In most cases I would rather pay for 7 more servers than for the 10,000 extra lines of code your C++ or Java implementation is going to cost me. Hardware is cheap. Engineers are expensive.
rguillebert 12y ago
Having just one implementation is hurting the ecosystem by restricting the amount of things you can do with Python
jerf 12y ago
Generally speaking, for a language like Python, having only one implementation is considered a bad sign. Anything serious has multiple implementations.
glynjackson 12y ago
Rubbish! It is called an open standard for a reason. http://www.toptal.com/python/why-are-there-so-many-pythons http://www.toptal.com/python/why-are-there-so-many-pythons
duaneb 12y ago
I don't think this is applicable to python. Only so many developers can work on cpython without stepping on toes. This led to the decision not to have cpython to be an implementation standard, not an experimental language, while pypy led the effort for expanding with a different team of developers. This is a good decision, because there are still more than enough developers to maintain a stable, full-featured cpython that pypy can conform to (to varying degrees). There aren't any competing standard libraries, for instance, and it's made very clear which libraries work on which implementations. Maybe if there were competing implementations to ruby, it would still be popular outside the rails community. But it seems as if the vast majority of ruby core developers work on the mainline implementation, or forks thereof.
twsted 12y ago
Really? See Javascript.