This is pretty bittersweet to see.

Python is my favorite language, but I'm honestly tired of having to rewrite performance bottlenecks in Cython or Rust all the time. When the Faster CPython project started with Microsoft's backing, I was really excited. Mark Shannon had that plan promising huge speedups across a few cycles, and while that clearly turned out to be much harder than anticipated, the team still kept pushing forward to deliver a real JIT.

Seeing all of that get bogged down in committee bureaucracy now is just frustrating.

I have a lot of respect for the core devs and I know maintaining CPython, and it is a time donation job. It isn't easy. But I feel that over-caution and red tape ends up discouraging serious contributions. They are setting an unreasonably high bar for something that would obviously help the entire ecosystem.

Just think about the sheer amount of electricity and compute power being wasted every single day running inefficient Python across millions of machines worldwide.

Python really deserves a proper JIT. I genuinely hope they reconsider this.

Unladen Swallow died for lack of upstream interest.

PyPy lacks upstream interest, looked like it could have a shot after many years of development but recently NumPy removed support because they just couldn’t fathom how a non-dead project could be a couple of versions behind CPython.

Now the new JIT is dying because of what seems to be a lack of upstream interest. (The things TFA describes as being required are not unreasonable, but not realistic for a necessarily speculative long-running project without wild amounts of committed funding.)

I’m not optimistic.

> Just think about the sheer amount of electricity and compute power being wasted every single day running inefficient Python across millions of machines worldwide.

Every single time I remember the first AI wave was done with Lisp and Prolog, both with tooling that supports machine code generation since about 50 years.

> committee bureaucracy

That's what's kept the language and ecosystem improving and from becoming a hot mess. If something isn't properly specced then it really shouldn't be in prod. They allowed the experiment in the first place so it'd be easier to gather sufficient data to guide said speccing, but the ball was dropped by the proposers and so the experiment was an ultimate failure (unlike free threading) and prod is now being appropriately cleaned up.

It's not red tape, it's about making sure that the effort actually delivers what it promises and can continue to so in the future. From the state of the draft PEP it seems it doesn't and it won't ever. The SC merely put the nail into the coffin.

I know not everyone loves them; but `Claude rewrite the performance bottlenecks in Rust` works so well it is hard to see the security surface area and harder reason about performance as something that should be paid in core.