Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The first stable release of PyPy3

morepypy.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 92 posts

Re: The first stable release of PyPy3

#11

Post by [deleted] »

masklinn wrote: post #6
thomasahle wrote: post #3

I wish the community would just switch entirely to pypy. Being able to just slightly performance sensitive code in python is a huge win.

> I wish the community would just switch entirely to pypy. What purpose would that serve? > Being able to just slightly performance sensitive code in python is a huge win. I think you slightly this phrase, but aside from that pypy does not work for everybody and everything (e.g. at best it's no slower for sphinx, it really doesn't like the way docutils works). It's not like pypy's a magic wand.

[deleted]

Re: The first stable release of PyPy3

#12

Post by ngoldbaum »

thomasahle wrote: post #3

I wish the community would just switch entirely to pypy. Being able to just slightly performance sensitive code in python is a huge win.

It makes sense to use pypy if you're writing pure python code. The second you need a C extension, you're pretty much out of luck. This kills a lot of the appeal for people in the scientific/analytics side of things, who make heavy use of legacy C and Fortran routines.

Re: The first stable release of PyPy3

#16

Post by rguillebert »

ngoldbaum wrote: post #12
thomasahle wrote: post #3

I wish the community would just switch entirely to pypy. Being able to just slightly performance sensitive code in python is a huge win.

It makes sense to use pypy if you're writing pure python code. The second you need a C extension, you're pretty much out of luck. This kills a lot of the appeal for people in the scientific/analytics side of things, who make heavy use of legacy C and Fortran routines.

You can use these C and Fortran routines on PyPy, just not with the CPython C extension API.

Re: The first stable release of PyPy3

#18

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

tedunangst wrote: post #13

Minor note: the openbsd support (at least for 2.x) is amd64 only. Building for i386 at some point requires running a bootstrap process that doesn't fit in memory.

> Building for i386 at some point requires running a bootstrap process that doesn't fit in memory.

Seriously, it takes more than 4gigs to build PyPy? Is that also necessary for other platforms besides OpenBSD?

Re: The first stable release of PyPy3

#19

Post by pekk »

derengel wrote: post #9

I don't know or use Python but why an implementation that is trying to be "superior" still has the GIL?

What DO you know or use? Did you think that the GIL was an obvious and stupid oversight made by stupid people for no good reason?

Re: The first stable release of PyPy3

#20

Post by dragonwriter »

ngoldbaum wrote: post #12
thomasahle wrote: post #3

I wish the community would just switch entirely to pypy. Being able to just slightly performance sensitive code in python is a huge win.

It makes sense to use pypy if you're writing pure python code. The second you need a C extension, you're pretty much out of luck. This kills a lot of the appeal for people in the scientific/analytics side of things, who make heavy use of legacy C and Fortran routines.

> The second you need a C extension, you're pretty much out of luck.

In theory, shouldn't CFFI be the foundation of the solution to that problem?

Post reply on HN