There exist TWO highly successful, widely used, JIT compilers for Python.  PyPy and Numba.  Neither one of them would have any use whatsoever for this constantness.  Or if you believe otherwise, get a developer of one of those to comment so.  JIT'd Python simply is not slow, even compared to compiled languages.  Searching for maybe-possibly-someday optimizations while ignoring the actual speed paths, is silly.

But I'll be moderate and only vote -100, 10x less negative than Paul Moore and Chris Angelico :-).

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:03 PM Paul Moore <> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 15:55, Paul Sokolovsky <> wrote:

> I also forgot to mention very important point in the intro: when you
> read this proposal, please don't think about "CPython". That for sure
> will send you the wrong vibes. Think about "Python". ;-)

By which you mean "CPython and all other implementations" I assume?

I'm also -1000 on this proposal, even if you just limit it to CPython.

It's not at all clear what prompted this idea, but if you're
suggesting "modify Python so we can make it faster" then I'd rather
see a prototype implementation that demonstrated both the limitations
*and* the improved performance. We shouldn't limit the core language
based simply on speculative benefits that some implementation might be
able to achieve.

Python-ideas mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Message archived at
Code of Conduct:

The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the
not-yet born.  Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse
the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born,
become abortifacients against new conceptions.