| ▲ | btown 5 hours ago | |
From https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-836-jit-go-brrr-the-path-to... : > We want the PEP to be clear that it’s ultimately the JIT team’s responsibility to find solutions for these packages and tools, and how to deal with situations where a tool can’t be supported or made to work Is it just me or is this absurdly impossible, to the point of willfully killing the project? Committing a team of brilliant compiler engineers to doing free consulting ad infinitum for every bit of tooling in the world, however hacked-together? The alternative would be to have the bravery to say: this is the way forward to keep this language relevant into the future, and as a steering committee we collectively own that some tooling may be out of date. Instead, this is a signal that Python is going to rest on its laurels for a very long time. | ||
| ▲ | skeledrew 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Python use is widely diverse. Anyone wishing to contribute to that which is published to such a diverse community, all of whom expect Python to continue working for them without any regressions, has to be ready to cater to that diversity in its entirety. | ||
| ▲ | lemagedurage 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Given that the speedup is modest (~10%) and the Python 3 migration caused enough pain for users, I get it though. If it was a 2x speedup it would be a different story IMO | ||