Native Code vs. Python code for modules

bearophileHUGS at lycos.com bearophileHUGS at lycos.com
Wed Jul 30 20:35:26 CEST 2008


John Nagle:
> Personally, I think the Shed Skin approach
> is more promising.

ShedSkin will probably have scaling problems: as the program size
grows it may need too much time to infer all the types. The author has
the strict policy of refusing any kind of type annotation, this make
it unpractical.

And, despite your interest in ShedSkin, so far very few people have
given a hand actually developing SS (I think partially because
ShedSkin Python sources aren't much hackable. This is very bad for an
OpenSource project), so I think the author now has lost part of the
will to develop this project (but probably we'll see one of two more
versions).

For me so far the most viable way to produce a faster Python system
seems a version of CPython with Cython and something Psyco-like built-
in (and a built-in compiler on Windows, like MinGW 4.2.1), maybe with
some syntax support in the Python language, allowing to mix statically
compiled Python code with dynamically compiled Python code in an easy
way (as CLisp sometimes does).

Bye,
bearophile



More information about the Python-list mailing list