Standardizing RPython - it's time.

Ryan Kelly ryan at
Mon Oct 11 22:47:06 CEST 2010

On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 13:01 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
> It may be time to standardize "RPython".
>    There are at least three implementations of "RPython" variants - PyPy,
> Shed Skin, and RPython for LLVM.  The first two are up and running.
> There's a theory paper on the subject:
>    All three have somewhat different restrictions:
> PyPy's Rpython:
> Shed Skin:
> file:///C:/Users/nagle/AppData/Local/Temp/shedskin-tutorial-0.3.html
> Rpython for LLVM:
> So a language standardization effort, independent of CPython,
> would be useful.

A similar topic was recently discussed on the pypy-dev mailing list:

My interpretation is that the pypy devs are -0 on such a standardisation
effort, as it would give them less flexibility in moulding rpython for
their specific needs.  Adding features to rpython that make it better as
a general-purpose programming language could actually make it *worse* as
a specialised language for building pypy.

OTOH, there does seem to be a growing interest in using rpython as a
stand-alone language.  I've used it for some small projects and it
worked out great.

But the intersection of (people who want rpython as a general-purpose
language) and (people who have the ability to make that happen) seems to
be approximately zero at the moment...


Ryan Kelly  |  This message is digitally signed. Please visit
ryan at        | for details

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the Python-list mailing list