Static typing [was Re: Python and the need for speed]
steve+python at pearwood.info
Mon Apr 17 06:53:04 EDT 2017
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 04:18 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve D'Aprano <steve+python at pearwood.info> writes:
>> Since it is *optional*, it is only a hint, not a fact. You can tell the
>> compiler that you believe that n will be an int, but it's not guaranteed.
> The runtime could check at the entry to the function that n is an int,
> and then it wouldn't have to keep re-checking on the inside of a loop.
> That's what a JIT compiler does in the absence of annotations, more or
Funnily enough, in the very post you quote, I did write:
"There are clever Just In Time compiler tricks that can optimize the code,
which is what Psycho did and PyPy still does, but they don't need type
The reason being that at runtime the compiler knows the type of the value
and the type hint is redundant.
On the other hand, there's Cython. Cython claims *not* to be a JIT compiler,
but I don't really understand why. As I understand it, Cython can operate
in two ways:
(1) as a Python interpreter, with some optimizations switched on or off at
runtime according to the types and/or values actually used by the program;
(2) as a pseudo-Python to C compiler, allowing you to write Python-ish code
that is compiled to C (plus a Python runtime for anything that's too hard
to translate into C).
I'm not sure why the Cython devs maintain this is not a JIT compiler.
Perhaps I misunderstand something.
> but the annotations make life easier for ahead-of-time compilers.
> Again this type of thing has been standard in Lisp since the 1960's.
Indeed it has. The state of the art of optimizations for dynamically typed
languages has been badly neglected for many years. Fortunately in the last
decade or so there's been a lot more interest in this.
See, for example, Steve Yegge:
“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.
More information about the Python-list