[pypy-dev] Comments from an observer
Ben.Young at risk.sungard.com
Ben.Young at risk.sungard.com
Wed Dec 7 17:46:12 CET 2005
Hi Holger,
I understand. I probably came across more pessimistic than I actually am.
It's just very easy to get excited by a project like this, and see the
endless possibilities (and not the endless hurdles)!
Cheers,
Ben
hpk at trillke.net (holger krekel) wrote on 07/12/2005 16:28:14:
> Hey Ben,
>
> just one additional note: we did say sometimes that we will do
> our best to help someone working on such a tool ... it's not
> too far off and actually quite some work has been spend on
> improving and refining the translation process. It just needs
> someone with dedication and some time to think and experiment
> a bit, tackling some minor issues and discussing/promoting
> larger issues.
>
> Moreover, the project is evolving in more directions
> than are covered by the EU funding and the EU
> only partially funds development anyway. The current
> group cannot follow all interesting paths at the same
> time - although it sometimes may appear so :)
>
> cheers,
>
> holger
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:03 +0000, Ben.Young at risk.sungard.com wrote:
> >
> > First of all I would like to say that I think PyPy is an amazing
project
> > and that you have all done a really great job. Also the comments I
have on
> > the project are not aimed at any people in the project, more just at
the
> > general direction it appears to be going in.
> >
> > PyPy is on the edge of something great. A maintainable, powerful,
> > flexible, fast interpreter is just what the python community needs.
> > However just when it seems that PyPy can start to have some real
> > significance in the Python world it seems like these benefits are
being
> > delayed for more research work which may take a long time.
> >
> > For instance a way of writing a rpython module that could be compiled
to a
> > Cpython extension or a PyPy extension would allow people to start
using
> > PyPy now, and at the same time make faster, powerful extensions for
> > CPython while maintaining an upgrade path to PyPy. This would bring
PyPy
> > to the attention of a lot of people giving more testers/developers.
> >
> > 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? The same arguments could be applied to most
programs
> > (python is easier to read/maintain/write). I really can't see why
> > something as useful as rpthon should remain an implementation detail,
and
> > again, exposing it would bring great exposure and benefits to the
project.
> >
> > 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.
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.
> >
> > Anyway, enough of my ranting. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone or
> > completely missed the point. I'll go back to being a hopefull lurker
> > again!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ben
> > _______________________________________________
> > pypy-dev at codespeak.net
> > http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
> >
>
More information about the Pypy-dev
mailing list