myths about python 3

alex23 wuwei23 at
Thu Jan 28 02:36:29 CET 2010

Terry Reedy <tjre... at> wrote:
> Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers have
> conservatively proposed its integration in CPython 3.3. I would not be
> completely shocked if it happens in 3.2.

Why do I feel like there's less of an onus on Unladen Swallow to
_actually prove itself in substantial real world usage_ before
integration into CPython than there is on even the smallest of modules
for inclusion in the standard library?

Are we really expected to just ditch everything we know about
CPython's performance characteristics just for some questionable and
possibly uneven gains?

I've been a big supporter of Py3 from the beginning, but this repeated
claim of US becoming the mainline interpreter for 3.x pretty much
kills dead a lot of my interest. What am I not seeing amidst the high
memory usage and variable performance results of US's _custom-made_
benchmarks? Doesn't that fact alone worry anyone else? Or that LLVM is
listed as only having "partial support" with non-Cygwin x86 Windows?

Yes, I'd _love_ Python to be faster, who wouldn't? But I'm not seeing
the evidence here to support the almost unbridled eagerness that's
being demonstrated.

More information about the Python-list mailing list