21–30 of 105 posts
Losing development momentum for a beancounting reason like this one is a sure way to kill a project. It works every time. Once development is halted, it is very difficult to pick it back up.
> For that reason, the Steering Council is formally requesting a Standards Track PEP be authored that the community can discuss and the Steering Council can formally accept (or reject), making the case for the JIT as a supported, non-experimental part of CPython: its guarantees, its maintenance commitments, and its impact on redistributors. I didn't notice the current PEP was a provisional one. Hope the new one gets…
>The experimental JIT was reported to finally breaking even and surpassing the default interpreter just a couple of months ago[1]. Thank You. As someone who don't follow python closely I thought their JIT would be similar to what Ruby has. Not that Ruby YJIT or ZJIT is anywhere close to what JVM provides, but in this case it seems to be quite far ahead of Python. Which is surprising given how many major companies are…
> For that reason, the Steering Council is formally requesting a Standards Track PEP be authored that the community can discuss and the Steering Council can formally accept (or reject), making the case for the JIT as a supported, non-experimental part of CPython: its guarantees, its maintenance commitments, and its impact on redistributors. I didn't notice the current PEP was a provisional one. Hope the new one gets…
Kind of a shit move to suddenly pull the rug once they've finally gotten it working. Should have been kept out of main from the start.
To leave their experimental phase they have to define some goals to meet and that requires making some architectural choices that still aren't decided.
Losing development momentum for a beancounting reason like this one is a sure way to kill a project. It works every time. Once development is halted, it is very difficult to pick it back up.
lol
>> For example, rather than proposing one single concrete JIT implementation, it may make more sense for the PEP to describe a JIT infrastructure that can support multiple implementation strategies.
poison-pill requirement
>> We are setting a window of six months for a PEP to be submitted and resolved. If no such PEP is accepted within that window, the JIT code must be removed from the main branch
so it's going to be removed from the main branch
"Asked to pause development" isn't entirely accurate: they were asked to pause landing new features (as opposed to bug fixes) on the cPython main branch.
And yet, I have a hunch it will piss off a lot of people nonetheless and lead to much outrage and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Hopefully it all works out in the long run.
> While the intent is not to call for competing proposals, we believe that now is a good time to discuss and propose alternative proposals as well. If I were a contributor I would read such language as saying "we have no respect for you or your intelligence, so we'll just straight up gaslight you and expect you to accept it." The dictum can't be read literally - it has to be read like the manipulative, narcissist-spe…
That's a very strong claim. I'm not seeing that at all. What causes you to interpret it that way?