[cpeterso]

I like Python, but I often wonder how many developers use Python because they actually use dynamic language features versus just liking the languages' clean syntax and library ecosystem. I'm surprised languages that offer both REPL (for development) and AOT native compilation (for production), like OCaml, are not more popular. Evidence that syntax matters, I guess. :)

mypy and mypyc are interesting but their compile-time checks and optimizations are still hampered by Python's dynamic language semantics.

[clintonb]

Don’t underestimate inertia. I’ve worked with Python and Django for seven years. I know the libraries in the ecosystem. I know the framework. It’s far easier for me to start a project with Django than to learn another framework or language.

[peteradio]

Names matter and OCaml is a crappy name.

[angry_octet]

If you think OCaml is bad, it used to be Caml Special Light, a play on Camel cigarette naming.

[peteradio]

Christ..

[pjmlp]

The dynamic language semantics of Lisp, Scheme, Smalltalk, JavaScript have not hampered the existence of good JIT/AOT compilers.

Smalltalk, for example you can completely change the structure of a class by sending a become: message.

What I think is missing is a bit of more PyPy love, and the Truffle and OpenJ9 Python support efforts.

[Sophistifunk]

I think a great deal of this sort of thing could be done by just doing some eval in a dynamic state before you stop the vm and compile its stable state, rather than the actual source code.

[dgoldstein0]

I think you missed part of the point of what the article was trying to say - or rather, what they hoped to do with this strict python. One of those things being some form of hot code loading. A snapshot of the state can't be incrementally rebuilt - it's very much all or nothing; whereas if we know or modules are side effect free, or at least some useful part of module loading is, we could cache that part and get faster start up times on incremental changes.

[angry_octet]

Sounds like they need Erlang.