Hi Holger, I understand. I probably came across more pessimistic than I actually am. It's just very easy to get excited by a project like this, and see the endless possibilities (and not the endless hurdles)!
Cheers, Ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] (holger krekel) wrote on 07/12/2005 16:28:14: > Hey Ben, > > just one additional note: we did say sometimes that we will do > our best to help someone working on such a tool ... it's not > too far off and actually quite some work has been spend on > improving and refining the translation process. It just needs > someone with dedication and some time to think and experiment > a bit, tackling some minor issues and discussing/promoting > larger issues. > > Moreover, the project is evolving in more directions > than are covered by the EU funding and the EU > only partially funds development anyway. The current > group cannot follow all interesting paths at the same > time - although it sometimes may appear so :) > > cheers, > > holger > > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:03 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > First of all I would like to say that I think PyPy is an amazing project > > and that you have all done a really great job. Also the comments I have on > > the project are not aimed at any people in the project, more just at the > > general direction it appears to be going in. > > > > PyPy is on the edge of something great. A maintainable, powerful, > > flexible, fast interpreter is just what the python community needs. > > However just when it seems that PyPy can start to have some real > > significance in the Python world it seems like these benefits are being > > delayed for more research work which may take a long time. > > > > For instance a way of writing a rpython module that could be compiled to a > > Cpython extension or a PyPy extension would allow people to start using > > PyPy now, and at the same time make faster, powerful extensions for > > CPython while maintaining an upgrade path to PyPy. This would bring PyPy > > to the attention of a lot of people giving more testers/developers. > > > > Also, most people on #pypy seem to ask about using pypy to compile their > > simple python programs to c. Now, this doesn't seem like a great deal of > > work away (better error messages etc), but they are (politely) told that > > this is not what rpython is for. Now if rpython is not for this, why did > > you write PyPy in it? The same arguments could be applied to most programs > > (python is easier to read/maintain/write). I really can't see why > > something as useful as rpthon should remain an implementation detail, and > > again, exposing it would bring great exposure and benefits to the project. > > > > I don't want to come across like a moaner (and indeed, that's why I stop > > writing on #pypy as felt I couldn't be enough of a positive voice), and > > the only reason I'm writing this is because I think so much of the project > > and think it has so much potential. The last thing I want to see is for > > PyPy to become a great implemention with many powerful features, but then > > find that it had missed its time by not being "results driven" enough. The > > world doesn't need another powerful research/university language, it needs > > a great production language and with PyPy I think Python could be that > > language. > > > > Anyway, enough of my ranting. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone or > > completely missed the point. I'll go back to being a hopefull lurker > > again! > > > > Cheers, > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] > > http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev > > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
