Reading is hard.

It runs and passes the full cpython testsuite, just 5x faster.

With AI it's 100x easier to maintain than by hand.

It reminds my on pperl. same approach using crane lift. Looks good

bunderbunder a day ago | parent | next [-]

The “status” section of the project’s readme explicitly says that it is not passing the full test suite, and that the AOT compiler passes fewer tests than the JIT one.

It also explicitly says that they’re still working on building out the standard library.

I’m maybe not as pessimistic as leobuskin, but they are absolutely right that this is not the first time someone has tried to build an alternative Python implementation, and that all previous ones have failed because they weren’t able to get close enough to 100% parity to be acceptable to most users. Python is an unusually quirky language. I kind of wonder if “written in Rust” adds an extra headwind here because there’s nothing even remotely memory-safe about Python’s extension mechanism. I don’t know enough to know, but I have read about the death of a few of these projects in the past and a common theme of the post-mortem seems to be, “It went so smoothly at the start that we were caught off guard how much of a brick wall the last 5% was going to be.”

▲

leobuskin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It passes only curated corpus (snippets), not the full CPython test suite. So, yes, reading is hard. Nothing against AI, btw.

▲

anitil a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your reply would have been much better without the first line [0]

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that"

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

imtringued a day ago | parent [-]

No, it wouldn't, because he didn't actually read the readme which clearly states that they are still working on passing the CPython test suite and that 5x performance is an aspirational goal, not something they accomplished yet.

>What is explicitly not done yet — this is the active roadmap, in order:

>CPython test suite (cpython-full): the standing grind; failures are clustered and burned down per wave.

>Stdlib build-out: _io/os, math/struct/random, collections/itertools/json, datetime, importlib parity — each lands as a native module plus a differential corpus module.

>Performance ratchets: tagged small-int flip, TLAB allocation, dict fast paths, float unboxing, call/attribute specialization, generator tiering — toward the ≥5× CPython geomean target (numerics ≥20×).

>AoT parity growth toward the full corpus, plus single-binary product polish.

>No-GIL/free-threaded runtime hardening: thread/GC/signal stress is now on the default runtime path, with remaining gaps tracked by the ratcheted suites.

Overall the substantial parts of his comment are completely wrong and the subjective parts are not much better

>With AI it's 100x easier to maintain than by hand.

This is an unsubstantiated opinion. In practice AI has a limit well below 100x.

>It reminds my on pperl. same approach using crane lift. Looks good

The only thing I can find on the internet that mentions "pperl" is this https://metacpan.org/pod/PPerl

>This program turns ordinary perl scripts into long running daemons, making subsequent executions extremely fast. It forks several processes for each script, allowing many proceses to call the script at once.

Which sounds nothing like pon, which is heavily inspired by bun. Meanwhile if it's this: https://perl.petamem.com/ which took quite a while to find, then I'm wondering why that would have precedence over bun?

Once you add the first sentence, it basically turns into a negative value comment that shouldn't have been posted.

	▲	anitil 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I noticed that it wasn't the best comment, I was only concerned with the tone, and I feel like dang has enough going on that we also need to help elevate the conversation. I admit there's some delicious irony in the accuser committing the same crime, but it doesn't improve the discussion to revel in that.

▲

cwillu a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Reading is hard.

The irony…

▲

ubercore a day ago | parent | prev [-]

How am I misreading this part of the readme?

> What is explicitly not done yet — this is the active roadmap, in order: > CPython test suite (cpython-full): the standing grind; failures are clustered and burned down per wave.