[jhayward]

> While the intent is not to call for competing proposals, we believe that now is a good time to discuss and propose alternative proposals as well.

If I were a contributor I would read such language as saying "we have no respect for you or your intelligence, so we'll just straight up gaslight you and expect you to accept it."

The dictum can't be read literally - it has to be read like the manipulative, narcissist-speak that it is. And what it's telling you is - get out.

[_old_dude_]

I agree. And the next section is very clear that they want to kill the project.

  > For example, rather than proposing one single concrete JIT implementation,
  > it may make more sense for the PEP to describe a JIT infrastructure that
  > can support multiple implementation strategies.
  > Since many different and promising JIT tracing approaches continue to be proposed,
  > we believe the infrastructure should make it easy to experiment with and evaluate
  > those approaches within CPython rather than be highly coupled with a single strategy.

Allowing multiple strategies is far harder and as far as I know, JIT tracing is still unproven.

[zem]

I'm a big fan of the pluggable jit strategy (I even gave a brief presentation about it at an earlier pycon). the idea is that you identify the seams in the interpreter where the jit interacts with the main interpreter loop, and then provide a clean mechanism for the built-in jit to be replaced by something else that works with the same api surface. it's a bit harder than letting the built-in jit be tightly coupled to and intertwined with the rest of the interpreter but certainly not far harder, and the work to get this sort of clean separation will help keep the jit maintainable even if there is never a second jit.

[Retr0id]

I think this is uncharitable, it's not like they're inventing new requirements that weren't there before. The PEP process has existed the whole time.

[bob001]

I suspect there were people who had alternative proposals which got implicitly blocked by this 5 year effort. Letting a subgroup run wild without proper process is not good for a project this large.

[KaiserPro]

> The dictum can't be read literally

out of curiosity, why not?

I mean it seems like they want to get a full spec of what JIT should look like in main? given the faff that hapened with the GC removal, I can sort see why they'd want to do this properly. Especially now that it seems like its practical.

[simonw]

"it has to be read like the manipulative, narcissist-speak that it is"

That's a very strong claim. I'm not seeing that at all. What causes you to interpret it that way?

[mike_hearn]

It's because they say they don't want to call for competitors and then immediately do so in the second half of the same sentence. It probably wasn't written with bad intent, but you can see why people might find it a strange choice.