PyPy.js: Now faster than CPython

Re:PyPy.js: Now faster than CPython by zo1 on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @11:48AM (#7705159)

Am I the only one that considers the title of this very "bait"-y? I mean, if you go on and read the article, it clearly shows that native PyPy is leaps and bounds faster than the JS version. So in essence, it re-iterates what most of us already know... That the PyPy implementation is much faster than the standard CPython one. It's just now we get to "prove" it in JS as well, as if it's some "suck it, python users" flaunt.

On a side note: To the PyPy.js authors/devs, great job! Looking forward to playing around with this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PyPy.js: Now faster than CPython by PetitPrince on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @11:52AM (#7705192)

According to the author, it is deliberately bait-y:

    OK OK, I couldn't resist that title but it probably goes a bit far. Let me try for
    a little more nuance:
        PyPy.js: Now faster than CPython, on a single carefully-tuned benchmark,
        after JIT warmup.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PyPy.js: Now faster than CPython by jkrems on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:30PM (#7705885)

Yes, it is baity and the article clearly admits to it. But it also clearly has PyPy and CPython in the title which is important. I don't read as "suck it python users" but as "great news, python users: if your code runs okay in CPython today, you could be running it in the browser with decent performance soon!". If anything it's a "suck it JS, we can now run real languages in the browser!"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PyPy.js: Now faster than CPython by DanWaterworth on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:36PM (#7705927)

I don't think the article is saying:

"pypy.js is really fast, why not use it instead of CPython?".

It's saying:

"Consider using pypy.js on the client, it's comparable in performance to native CPython; you consider that fast enough."

[ Parent | on HN ]