And, in some ways, PyPy. I still think it is the sanest way to implement Python.

It makes me sad that I have to write C to make any meaningful changes to Python. Same goes for ruby. Rubinius was such a nice project.

Hacking on schemes and lisps made me realize how much more fun it is when the language is implemented in the language itself. It also makes sure you have the right abstractions for solving a bunch of real problems.

▲

actionfromafar an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Well, one could rewrite Python (perhaps piece by piece?) in Shedskin.

Shedskin is very nearly Python compatible, one could say it is an implementation of Python.

▲

anitil 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> And, in some ways, PyPy

What do you mean by that? I'm not familiar with PyPy

▲

nxpnsv 4 hours ago | parent [-]

PyPy is python implemented in python. It is fast.

▲

notpushkin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://pypy.org/

It lags behind CPython in features and currently only supports Python versions up to 3.11. There was a big discussion a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47293415

But you can help! https://pypy.org/howtohelp.html

https://opencollective.com/pypy

▲

Doxin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

PyPy is python implemented in RPython, which is technically a python subset. It's so restricted it might as well be a different language though.

▲

bjoli 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It is restricted in a way that you would restrict yourself to write high speed software in most languages, and I found it is not that restrictive compared to C that you would have to use if you were to write a fast Python library.

	▲	Doxin an hour ago \| parent [-]
		oh for sure, but I still feel like telling people pypy is written in python is misleading. it's written in something significantly like python, but it's not python.