steering-council VS ideas

GVR called it a fork two weeks ago in his justification for not accepting it [1]. If that surprises you, the backstory is summarized pretty well in the article [2] and FAQ [3].

I'm really not trying to be secretive. We can debate whatever you want, but we have to at least acknowledge CPython's stated position.

[1] https://github.com/python/steering-council/issues/188#issuec...

[2] https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=214235

[3] https://docs.python.org/3/faq/library.html#can-t-we-get-rid-...

Thanks for reviewing the PEP. The PEP was posted five months ago, and it has been 20 months since an end-to-end working implementation (that works with a large number of extensions) was discussed on python-dev. I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to review the PEP and offer comments and suggestions.

You wrote that the Steering Council's decision does not mean "no," but the steering council has not set a bar for acceptance, stated what evidence is actually needed, nor said when a final decision will be made. Given the expressed demand for PEP 703, it makes sense to me for the steering committee to develop a timeline for identifying the factors it may need to consider and for determining the steps that would be required for the change to happen smoothly.

Without these timelines and milestones in place, I would like to explain that the effect of the Steering Council's answer is a "no" in practice. I have been funded to work on this for the past few years with the milestone of submitting the PEP along with a comprehensive implementation to convince the Python community. Without specific concerns or a clear bar for acceptance, I (and my funding organization) will have to treat the current decision-in-limbo as a “no” and will be unable to pursue the PEP further.

Github Link: https://github.com/python/steering-council/issues/188#issuec...

Hmm, likely because it was already submitted to the steering council since April and because the addition is relatively trivial (at runtime, it's almost a no-op).

Lower latency native calls in Python would be extremely useful, thank you for your work! Is the following GitHub issue the right place to monitor progress? https://github.com/faster-cpython/ideas/issues/546

I'm open to doing some benchmarking. Several of my libraries have pure CPython bindings (StringZilla, UCall, SimSIMD), and all perform low-latency SIMD-accelerated ops, so might be a good testing ground :)

Recent CPython development has been towards optimizations and addressing use cases that benefit from optimizations, some coming from the faster CPython initiative. You might just get your JIT[1].

[1] https://github.com/faster-cpython/ideas/wiki/Workflow-for-3....

The faster-cpython folks seem to be working towards a JIT (https://github.com/faster-cpython/ideas/tree/main/3.13) and both pyston and cinder have JITs. So I don't think anyone has ruled one out.

faster-cpython team has done a lot of work to experiment on it: https://github.com/faster-cpython/ideas/issues/485#issuecomm...

It kind of sounds like migration to register based is a foregone conclusion, but it's not very clear to me.

lots of big ideas are still remaining to be done. One example is the register based interpreter, see https://github.com/faster-cpython/ideas/issues/485

A previous plan called for the beginning of a JIT in 3.12, seen as "Trace optimized interpreter" here: https://github.com/faster-cpython/ideas/wiki/Workflow-for-3....