On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 at 07:34 Pau Freixes <pfreixes@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe it is happening but not in the way that you would expect

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-January/152029.html

As one of the people who works at Microsoft and has Steve as a teammate I'm well aware of what MS contributes. :) My point is even with the time Steve, me, and our fellow core devs at MS get to spend on Python, it still pales in comparison to what some other languages get with dedicated staffing.

Anyway, do we conclude, or at least a significant part, that is something desiderable but some constraints do not allow to work on that?

I'm not sure what you're referencing as "something desirable", but I think we all want to see Python improve if possible.

Also, more technically Iwouls like to have your point of view of two questions, sorry if these sound kind stupid.

1) Is CPython 4 a good place to start to think on make the default execution mone debuggale. Having an explicit -g operand that by default is disabled, shouldnt be an open window for changing many thinks behind the scenes?

Don't view Python 4 as a magical chance to do a ton of breaking changes like Python 3.

2) Regarding the Yuris proposal to cache bultin functions, why this strategy cant be used for objects and their attributes within the function scope? Technically which is the red flag?

Descriptors are the issue for attributes. After that it's a question of whether it's worth the overhead of other scope levels (built-ins are somewhat unique in that they are very rarely changed).

The key point is that all of this requires people's time and we just don't have tons of that available at the moment.

-Brett

Cheers,

El 29/01/2018 18:10, "Brett Cannon" <brett@python.org> escribió:

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018, 23:36 Pau Freixes, <pfreixes@gmail.com> wrote:
> At a technical level, the biggest problems relate to the way we
> manipulate frame objects at runtime, including the fact that we expose
> those frames programmatically for the benefit of debuggers and other
> tools.

Shoudnt be something that could be tackled with the introduction of a
kind of "-g" flag ? Asking the user to make explicit that is willing
on having all of this extra information that in normal situations
won't be there.

>
> More broadly, the current lack of perceived commercial incentives for
> large corporations to invest millions in offering a faster default
> Python runtime, the way they have for the other languages you
> mentioned in your initial post :)

Agree, at least from my understanding, Google has had a lot of
initiatives to improve the JS runtime. But at the same moment, these
last years and with the irruption of Asyncio many companies such as
Facebook are implementing their systems on top of CPython meaning that
they are indirectly inverting on it.

I find that's a red herring. There are plenty of massive companies that have relied on Python for performance-critical workloads in timespans measuring in decades and they have not funded core Python development or the PSF in a way even approaching the other languages Python was compared against in the original email. It might be the feeling of community ownership that keeps companies from making major investments in Python, but regardless it's important to simply remember the core devs are volunteers so the question of "why hasn't this been solved" usually comes down to "lack of volunteer time".

-Brett

--
--pau
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/