pants
nogil
Our great sponsors
pants | nogil | |
---|---|---|
35 | 31 | |
3,098 | 2,853 | |
2.5% | - | |
9.8 | 5.7 | |
3 days ago | 2 months ago | |
Python | Python | |
Apache License 2.0 | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
pants
-
The xz attack shell script
> C/C++'s header system with conditional inclusion
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like "older build systems"? I don't think any of the things you listed are "modern". Which isn't a criticism of their legacy! They have been very useful for a long time, and that's to be applauded. But they have huge problems, which is a big part of why newer systems have been created.
FWIW, I have been using pants[0] (v2) for a little under a year. We chose it after also evaluating it and bazel (but not nix, for better or worse). I think it's really really great! Also painful in some ways (as is inevitably the case with any software). And of course it's nearly impossible to entirely stomp out "genrules" use cases. But it's much easier to get much closer to true hermeticity, and I'm a big fan of that.
0: https://www.pantsbuild.org/
-
Monorepo + Microservices + Dependency Managment + Build system HELL
Does pants/bazel can help me?
- Pants 2: The ergonomic build system
-
Go Dependency management in large company projects - How do you do it?
Hyper-large tech companies managing hyper-large monorepos using Bazel (google), buck (Facebook), please (thought machine), pants (Twitter, Foursquare & Square) enjoy them but also have a lot of resources devoted to running and maintaining it.
-
Reason to use other Build Tool than Make?
Yeah there's definitely some alternatives out there. Pants is another one that has a lot of traction.
-
Is it possible pickle a function with its dependencies?
You should look into pex, or itβs parent build system pants. A PEX (Python EXecutable) file can package up all your code including dependencies and run on another machine of similar OS with just an available compatible interpreter.
-
Sanity check of my decision for "Iterative AI" (DVC, MLEM, CML) pipeline over Azure ML
We don't have the CD yet, but I think what I put in place counts as simple CI (even if incomplete)? Every push & PR trigger an azure pipeline, which runs pants. This install the dependencies from the lockfile, run some linters, uses DVC to pull the data necessary for tests, and run unit tests (mypy check is deactivated until I solve a weird error). Basically the same script runs on laptops cross-platform (one of us uses Max, one Ubuntu with GPU, one Ubuntu with CPU, the scripts runs on every platform). The only difference with CI is the installation of Pants and the gestion of Cache (needs to be downloaded in CI so it takes ~3min in CI versus 20 seconds on my laptop).
- Pants 2: fast, scalable, user-friendly build system for codebases of all sizes
-
Maintain a Clean Architecture in Python with Dependency Rules
This has also been recently integrated in pants.
https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/issues/13393
- Blazing fast CI with MicroVMs
nogil
- Proof-of-Concept Multithreaded Python Without the GIL
-
Our Plan for Python 3.13
This might be a dumb question, but why would removing the GIL break FFI? Is it just that existing no-GIL implementations/proposals have discarded/ignored it, or is there a fundamental requirement, e.g. C programs unavoidably interact directly with the GIL? I know that the C-API is only stable between minor releases [0] compiled in the same manner [1], so it's not like the ecosystem is dependent upon it never changing.
I cannot seem to find much discussion about this. I have found a no-GIL interpreter that works with numpy, scikit, etc. [2][3] so it doesn't seem to be a hard limit. (That said, it was not stated if that particular no-GIL implementation requires specially built versions of C-API libs or if it's a drop-in replacement.)
[0]: https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/stable.html#c-api-stability
[1]: https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/stable.html#platform-conside...
[2]: https://github.com/colesbury/nogil
[3]: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-703-making-the-global-inter...
-
Real Multithreading Is Coming to Python
https://github.com/colesbury/nogil does manage to get rid of the GIL, but it's not certain to make it into Python core. The main problem is the amount of existing libraries that depend on the existence of the GIL without realizing it - breaking those would be extremely disruptive.
-
[D] The hype around Mojo lang
CPython is also investigating the removal of the GIL (PEP703, nogil). I think requiring the GIL is a wider thing that libraries will need to address anyway. But also, for the same reason as above I'd be surprised if the Modular team thought that saying "you can run all your python code unchanged" was a good idea if there was a secret "except for code that uses numpy" muttered under the breath.
- PEP 684 was accepted β Per-interpreter GIL in Python 3.12
- PEP 703 β Making the Global Interpreter Lock Optional in CPython
-
Python 3.11.0 final is now available
I'm worried about the speedup
My understanding is that it's based on the most recent attempt to remove the GIL by Sam Gross
https://github.com/colesbury/nogil
In addition to some ways to try to not have nogil have as much overhead he added a lot of unrelated speed improvements so that python without the gil would still be faster not slower in single thread mode. They seem to have merged those performance patches first that means if they add his Gil removal patches in say python 3.12 it will still be substantially slower then 3.11 although faster then 3.10. I hope that doesn't stop them from removing the gil (at least by default)
- Removed the GIL back in 1996 from Python 1.4, primarily to create a re-entrant Python interpreter.
- I Tried Removing Python's GIL Back in 1996
-
Faster CPython 3.12 Plan
Looks like it's still active to me:
https://github.com/colesbury/nogil/
What are some alternatives?
Bazel - a fast, scalable, multi-language and extensible build system
hpy - HPy: a better API for Python
megalinter - π¦ MegaLinter analyzes 50 languages, 22 formats, 21 tooling formats, excessive copy-pastes, spelling mistakes and security issues in your repository sources with a GitHub Action, other CI tools or locally.
mypyc - Compile type annotated Python to fast C extensions
please - High-performance extensible build system for reproducible multi-language builds.
numpy - The fundamental package for scientific computing with Python.
pyflow - An installation and dependency system for Python
Pytorch - Tensors and Dynamic neural networks in Python with strong GPU acceleration
pyupgrade - A tool (and pre-commit hook) to automatically upgrade syntax for newer versions of the language.
python-feedstock - A conda-smithy repository for python.
Buck - A fast build system that encourages the creation of small, reusable modules over a variety of platforms and languages.
sbcl - Mirror of Steel Bank Common Lisp (SBCL)'s official repository