Hi Michael, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/12/2005 22:09:09:
> This reply is solely to make a couple of points that I don't think > have been made yet -- I don't want to give the impression that those > points were less important that the ones I mention here. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > 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? > > Because we needed a description of the Python language that is amenable > to analysis. I hope this isn't a new answer to you... I do understand that. It's just that as PyPy is a relatively complicated program it follows that rpython is good for making a lot of python programs amenable to analysis. (Yes as a by-product, but in my opinion an incredibly powerfull and usefull one) > > > 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. > > What results do you want? > Sorry, I guess "results driven" came across slightly differently from how I meant it. I guess I meant that PyPy has many parts that with a bit of polish could be useable now in production based scenarios, as people keep asking about in IRC. I.e if people could write extensions, and PyPy was itself a bit faster and more polished then people could start using it now, and upgrade to a JIT version/different backend/thread model etc later. > > 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. > > Yes, but I want *Python* to be that language, with its multitude of > existing libraries and useful dyanmism and all the rest. Have you > read this blog post: > > http://dirtsimple.org/2005/10/children-of-lesser-python.html > > ? I think I agree with his point that supporting 80% of the language > is of much less than 80% of the value. > > If you have new code to write, then fine, writing it in RPython isn't > that bad. But it's the people who want to, e.g., use urllib2 or some > old code they wrote last year that I personally am interested in > helping, i.e. every single user Python has today. This is why I'm > most interested in the JIT and the standard interpreter end of things, > not productizing an RPython compiler. Now I'm not and wouldn't want > to be speaking for the project as a whole, and I agree that > productizing RPython would be a very worthwhile project -- but I'm not > going to do it, sorry. > > I hope that this has at least convinced you that I have no intention > of PyPy being a research/university language, either. > You have convinced me, and I'm glad that you are all so passionate about the project. Again, I didn't want to come across as moaning, and I want to thank you for all the work you have done so far. Cheers, Ben > Cheers, > mwh > > -- > I never disputed the Perl hacking skill of the Slashdot creators. > My objections are to the editors' taste, the site's ugly visual > design, and the Slashdot community's raging stupidity. > -- http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/klee/misc/slashdot.html#faq > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
