| ▲ | avaer 20 hours ago |
| The repo does make a case for this, namely speed, which does make sense. |
|
| ▲ | sd2k 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| True, but while CPython does have a reputation for slow startup, completely re-implementing isn't the only way to work around it - e.g. with eryx [1] I've managed to pre-initialize and snapshots the Wasm and pre-compile it, to get real CPython starting in ~15ms, without compromising on language features. It's doable! [1] https://github.com/eryx-org/eryx |
|
| ▲ | OutOfHere 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Speed is not a feature if there isn't even syntax parity with CPython. |
| |
| ▲ | maxbond 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not having parity is a property they want, similar to Starlark. They explicitly want a less capable language for sandboxing. Think of it as a language for their use case with Python's syntax and not a Python implementation. I don't know if it's a good idea or not, I'm just an intrigued onlooker, but I think lifting a familiar syntax is a legitimate strategy for writing DSLs. | | |
| ▲ | OutOfHere 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not having syntax parity with Python == not Python. End of story. The title stays "Python interpreter" which accordingly it is not. | | |
|
|
