It seems to be that nuitka could possibly become what Unladen Swallow couldn't: a blessed CPython speedup, as a stopgap until everyone moves to PyPy.
Interesting either way. There have been several other similar efforts, one of which targeted x86 assembly directly. On 13 October 2011 17:00, Allison Randal <[email protected]> wrote: > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Request for packaging - Nuitka the Python Compiler > Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:33:55 +0000 (UTC) > Resent-From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:33:33 +0200 > From: Kay Hayen <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > > Hello Jakub, > >>> http://www.nuitka.net/blog/nuitka-a-python-compiler/what-is-nuitka/ >> >> How is it different/better than pure-Python[0] mode of Cython? > > It's more compatible to CPython than anything that exists. Nuitka passes > practically 100% of the test suite. Currently I don't have support for > threading, and that's it. Frame stack works perfect in branch already. > > Nuitka is a project not about a hybrid language, and not about C types, > and it's intended for whole programs acceleration. That's probably > differences that currently matter. > > It's design is cleaner, it uses the CPython parser to parse Python, it > uses Scons to build the generated code, etc. > > Cython is trying to be more Python compatibility recently, but Nuitka > already had full language coverage, before Cython started with > generators. Now they have it. But there is still "unimportant" things, > not supported. > > I believe Cython is currently the best choice available for something > productive, but Nuitka has a cleaner plan (only Python semantics matter) > and I believe a quicker road to success, and has already uses. > > Ultimately, I agree with Dr. Stefan Behnel, one of the lead developers > of Cython, that the projects are coming from different ends, but reach > out to similar goals. > > I gave my reasons on recent PyCON DE. But it boils down to willingness > to move and different goals. Stefan agrees with me that Nuitka has > different enough goals, or so I understood. > > To give an example, parameter errors. The error messages of Nuitka are > identical to CPython and that's the test. The error message of Cython > are not identical and arguably not better. The generated code may be or > or less faster. > > To me, the only correct solution is the one that 100% imitates CPython > and even avoids improvements to CPython. To Stefan the faster solution > is an acceptable compromise. > > With this approach, a 100% compatibility cannot be achieved, which also > means that you have to have your own tests. Cython needs to have a lot > of efforts, because it has data driven testing that describes the > non-CPython behaviour of Cython. I can just compare CPython and Nuitka > and every difference is a bug. > > Yours, > Kay > > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev > _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
