Doesn't PyPy already have a jit compiler? Why aren't we using that?

As far as I know, PyPy doesn't support all CPython extensions, so pure Python code will probably (very likely) run fine but for other things most bets are off. I believe PyPy also only supports up to 3.11?

PyPy isn't CPython.

A lot of Python code still leans on CPython internals, C extensions, debuggers, or odd platform behavior, so PyPy works until some dependency or tool turns that gap into a support problem.

The JIT helps on hot loops, but for mixed workloads the warmup cost and compatibility tax are enough to keep most teams on the interpreter their deps target first.

Why shouldn't the reference implementation get JIT? Just because some other implementations already have it is no reason not to. That'd be like skipping list comprehensions because they already exist in CPython.

Because the same people who made a big deal about supporting PyPy and PEP 399 when it was fashionable to do so are now told by their corporations that PyPy does not matter. CPython only moves with what is currently fashionable, employer mandated and profitable.

PyPy is limited to maintenance mode due to a lack of funding/contributors. In the past, I think a few contributors or funding is what helped push "minor" PyPy versions. It's too bad PyPy couldn't take the federal funding the PSF threw away.

> It's too bad PyPy couldn't take the federal funding the PSF threw away.

The PSF is primarily a political advocacy organisation, so it wouldn't make sense for them to use the money for Python.

Because PyPy seems to be defunct. It hasn't updated for quite a while.

See https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/30416 for example. It's not being updated for compatibility with new versions of Python.

[flagged]

It supports at best Python 3.11 code, right?

So it’s not unmaintained, no. But the project is currently under resourced to keep up with the latest Python spec.

That is not the same thing at all, and not what he said.

It is exactly what I'm referring to. I didn't say there aren't still people around. But they're far enough behind CPython that folks like NumPy are dropping support. Unless they get a substantial injection of new people and new energy, they're likely to continue falling behind.

> I didn't say there aren't still people around.

You said it was defunct, which would mean there aren't still people working on it.

Not what you wrote.

Also CPython 3.10 is not EOL so library authors won't be using anything from 3.11 anyway.

[flagged]

[flagged]

You've both been here long enough to know that this kind of sniping should be avoided here.

You've both been here long enough to know that this kind of sniping should be avoided here.