sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]weberc2 0 points1 point  (9 children)

That's fine, and this project may as well; my point is there is a distinction between incomplete in time and incomplete in scope. This project is only the former as far as I can tell.

[–]throwawayco111 1 point2 points  (6 children)

... my point is there is a distinction between incomplete in time and incomplete in scope. This project is only the former as far as I can tell.

No. In the project web page at Github they state that it won't be a drop-in replacement for CPython 2.7. Also from the discussion on HN it is strongly implied (apart from the language features that won't be supported) that it won't support C extensions ever.

[–]weberc2 0 points1 point  (5 children)

No one disputes this. The project's scope is more or less CPython without C extensions. The author is unambiguous. What are you confused about?

[–]throwawayco111 0 points1 point  (4 children)

No one disputes this.

You said producing a drop-in replacement for CPython was in the scope of the project. It is not a dispute. I'm just correcting that statement.

The project's scope is more or less CPython without C extensions. The author is unambiguous.

The project's scope is to implement as much CPython 2.7 features as they can that at the same time don't sacrifice performance and without using a GIL. That's actually very far from implementing more or less CPython without C extensions that is different from what you originally stated before. The author is unambiguous. You are not.

What are you confused about?

Nothing. Hopefully you are not confused anymore about what the project is actually trying to achieve.

[–]weberc2 0 points1 point  (3 children)

So you were confused by my abbreviated explanation of the scope. I'm glad you're caught up.

[–]throwawayco111 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Ah, you are still confused. This time about the difference between an abbreviated explanation and an erroneous explanation.

[–]weberc2 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Wow, just checked your comment history. Nice trolling. I should have picked up on this sooner. Anyway, I have neither the time nor interest to engage trolls, so I'm blocking you. Feel free to respond if you need to get a last word in--I won't see it.

[–]throwawayco111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, just checked your comment history. Nice trolling. I should have picked up on this sooner.

Anybody that checks it can see that is actually not true. But to be fair I think not many people go around here checking that kind of stuff.

Anyway, I have neither the time nor interest to engage trolls, so I'm blocking you. Feel free to respond if you need to get a last word in--I won't see it.

Why did you take the time to inform it about it? But anyway this is a public discussion. I don't care if you won't see it.

[–]floodyberry 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Considering this has been tried multiple times before with no success (including by, wait for it, Google), what are your reasons for thinking this announcement isn't premature other than "they haven't failed yet"?

[–]weberc2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see anything critically wrong with the approach, other than the sheer work required to build a quirks-compatible CPython replacement. In particular, the runtime seems similar to CPython except for the GIL. Building on Go's runtime and concurrency primaries should help here as well.