[stmw]

Some languages are much harder to compile well to machine code. Some big factors (for any languages) are things like: lack of static types and high "type uncertainty", other dynamic language features, established inefficient extension interfaces that have to be maintained, unusual threading models...

[RussianCow]

That makes sense if you're comparing with Java or C#, but not Ruby, which is way more dynamic than Python.

The more likely reason is that there simply hasn't been that big a push for it. Ruby was dog slow before the JIT and Rails was very popular, so there was a lot of demand and room for improvement. PHP was the primary language used by Facebook for a long time, and they had deep pockets. JS powers the web, so there's a huge incentive for companies like Google to make it faster. Python never really had that same level of investment, at least from a performance standpoint.

To your point, though, the C API has made certain types of optimizations extremely difficult, as the PyPy team has figured out.

[flykespice]

> Python never really had that same level of investment, at least from a performance standpoint.

Or lack of incentive?

Alot of big python projects that does machine learning and data processing offloads the heavy data processing from pure python code to libraries like numpy and pandas that take advantage of C api binding to do native execution.

[vlovich123]

Google, Dropbox, and Microsoft from what I can recall all tried to make Python fast so I don’t buy the “hasn’t seen a huge amount of investment”. For a long time Guido was opposed to any changes and that ossified the ecosystem.

But the main problem was actually that pypy was never adopted as “the JIT” mechanism. That would have made a huge difference a long time ago and made sure they evolved in lock step.

[int_19h]

Microsoft is the one the TFA refers to cryptically when it says "the Faster CPython team lost its main sponsor in 2025".

AFAIK it was not driven by anything on the tech side. It was simply unlucky timing, the project getting in the middle of Microsoft's heavy handed push to cut everything. So much so that the people who were hired by MS to work on this found out they were laid off in a middle of a conference where they were giving talks on it.

[simonask]

The simplest JIT just generates the machine code instructions that the interpreter loop would execute anyway. It’s not an extremely difficult thing, but it also doesn’t give you much benefit.

A worthwhile JIT is a fully optimizing compiler, and that is the hard part. Language semantics are much less important - dynamic languages aren’t particularly harder here, but the performance roof is obviously just much lower.

[stmw]

Agree re: different types of JITs producing wildly different results but don't agree about language semantics - even a Java JIT has to give up speed due to certain seemingly minor language and JVM issues. So both matter - no matter how good of a compiler engineer you are, some semantics are just not optimizable. Indeed, the use of a "trace JITs" is a proof of that.

[simonask]

This is orthogonal to the difficulty of actually implementing a JIT compiler.

It’s very much possible to make something less advanced than JVM or CLR, or even V8, that will still outperform an interpreter, even for an extremely dynamic language like Python.

As others have mentioned, the roadblock here is that interpreter internals are too public, so doing it without breaking the C API that extensions use is really hard.

[kelvinjps]

I think that it's just that python people took the problem different, they made working with c and other languages better, and just made bindings for python and offloaded the performant code to these libraries. Ex: numpy