We are actively trying to secure funding and goals to make numpy fast, now that it works and we are working together with numpy community to make sure it stays working.
But often the rest of your code base will experience dramatic increases in performance, and the penalty on already fast CFFI calls was not significant overall (in our use case).
Usually your donate links are mentioned on your blogspot and more than one person has told me that they are not sure this blogspot is authentic.
Do look into having a single static website with a blog - using something like Pelican (http://www.pelicanthemes.com)
The blog could be written by Trafalmadorian trolls, and it wouldn't matter - so long as you trusted that "pypy.org" was part of the PyPy project and that its connection to PayPal was valid.
I don't think your last comment is relevant. What I think you are saying is that the blog should be hosted under pypy.org and not blogspot. It could be WordPress or any other system.
It couldn't easily be Pelican because the blog supports comments, which means integrating with some other commenting system - plus authentication and spam detection. Why not get rid of the hassle of manually adding files and rebuilding the server and just use blogspot?
Lastly, are you really saying that people aren't donating to PyPy because some supportive blog site somewhere else, run by who knows who, isn't hosted on pypy.org?
Not many read the blog post, then go to Google, search for pypy and then click the link and then donate.
Fundraising is not an easy process - there is an aspect of sales here. Blogspot may be easy.. but its not good branding. And that was my point - cos I want them to succeed.
If I start a blog - completely independent of PyPy - which promotes PyPy and describes the development efforts, and I want to encourage people to support the PyPy project, then I might link to the PyPy donation page, yes?
Yet, because I'm not affiliated with the project, I can't put the blog under pypy.org.
Would my blog also be shady? If so, doesn't that mean that no one should promote donating to a project unless that promotion is done under the project's domain?
You write "Not many read the blog post, then go to Google, search for pypy and then click the link and then donate."
That would be true even if the blog post were hosted under pypy.org. That is, why would anyone donate after reading one blog post?
I would think that more people would donate after they download PyPy, try it out, and see that it's worthwhile enough to fund.
In that case, they've already found out how to get PyPy, so there's no need to "Google, search for pypy" because they've already done that.
Nor is PyPy unusual in this respect. It's hard to find projects which have both a blog and a donate page. Of the 50 so projects I looked at, the following are "shady" according to your definition:
- the PSF blog (hosted on blogspot) links to the python.org page for donations, eg, https://pyfound.blogspot.com/search?q=donate .
- The Thunderbird blog has a posting like https://blog.mozilla.org/thunderbird/2018/08/whats-new-in-th... linking to https://donate.mozilla.org/thunderbird/ while the main Thunderbird page is at https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/
- Orange, with a blog at https://blog.biolab.si/ is a sibling subdomain to the main project site at https://orange.biolab.si/ , making it ... semi-shady? I mean, how are we to know that "biolab.si" is not some sort of large ISP where any of their customers can make a subdomain?
I did find a two places where the "donate" and "blog" pages were hosted on the same domain: http://rssbandit.org/ (which links to a SourceForce page which redirects to PayPal) and http://sagerss.com/ .
To summarize, I don't see why it's shady, your view seems to mean that no one should promote donating to a project except for the project itself, static site generation tools don't seem to be a good fit for blog support, and it doesn't seem like the effort to change to a single domain would have a worthwhile effect on improving the donation rate.
I'm saying it is hosted on blogspot and there is another main site which is a pypy.org . People dont think the way you do. Try it out - ask 10 people if they would open this blogspot page and ever click on the donate link. Pypy's blog is not shady - blogspot as a free hosting service is shady.
your examples of mozilla, etc blogs are super orthogonal - they are hosted on an authoritative domain. Again, I'm repeating - it has nothing to do with pypy. Its about blogspot.
You are again attacking my suggestion of static site - the reason i suggested that was because it was a python based site generator with a CMS. you can try to do a wix site or whatever. As long as its an authoritative domain.
Its not about me - its how people thing. You should go and check.
I think the answer is "very unlikely", which is why I don't think your example is a useful diagnostic.
I also don't think "authoritative domain" is meaningful. What does it mean to be "authoritative" and how do people tell if a domain is authoritative?
I gave the examples of blog.biolab.si and orange.biolab.si - is "biolab.si" authoritative enough to know that both subdomains are part of the same project, if pointed to blog.biolab.si ?
Let's stay in the same top-level domain. Is github.com authoritative? What about gitlab.com? If so, what does that mean? That we can trust paths under that domain to be part of the project?
I note that https://github.com/donate and https://gitlab.com/donate both exist, but neither are ways to donate to the respective projects. So the answer is clearly "no".
Indeed, it looks like someone could set up https://gitlab.com/gitlab_blog as a place to describe GitLab development, and set up https://gitlab.com/donate as a way to donate, and yet have nothing to do with GitLab.
So if someone read a blog post under gitlab.com/gitlab_blog/, then they still can't trust the donate link but must instead, as you wrote earlier "go to Google, search for [gitlab] and then click the link and then donate" .. though neither takes donations on their home page.
How is the PyPy situation any worse by not hosting the blog on a non-authoritative URL?
Congratulations PyPy team for the great release!
I use pypy3 pretty heavily in some personal projects, and the install process has always been extremely annoying. This is great!
I wish they'd set up a CI-build PPA (or any install process that's not just "wget binary").
I actually looked at setting up my own ppa at one point, but it's apparently involved enough that I didn't have time.
I don't know that they have the will to bug-for-bug reproduce CPython but the C API emulation layer added within the last few years probably means that it will be really high fidelity.
shrug, use python 3.x and don't sweat the fact that some folks are still stuck on 2.x. You certainly can't stop someone from offering support for 2.x -- the language is well defined and the reference implementation is open source. Anyone out there could put up a "Python 2.x Support: Cheap!" sign and be in business.
I mean really? A script that might mention some cases it can't fix as warnings. "optional" fixes that replace missing classes with incompatible replacements, giving you the "choice" of fixing the mess by hand. Also an apparently unstable API for your own fixes, doubling down on breaking your code while you try to fix your broken code has to be dedication.
> Note The lib2to3 API should be considered unstable and may change drastically in the future.
I sill have people using my Win16-based software written using Borland Pascal with Objects I wrote 30 years ago. They keep changing power supplies, etc. of an old system, but recently they had some major hardware problem and asked me to help them. I couldn't and wouldn't.
They ended up somebody creating a VM from their hard drive, and they are happy now and can back up that image and keep the circus going on forever.
If pypy wants to support 2, they can. If developers want to take advantage of that, they can. If library maintainers want to drop 2 support, they can. If others want to fork the libraries to provide security for the 2.x fork, they can.
What is not acceptable is trying to dictate what technology others choose to use to suit your personal preference.
At work we had this internal service that did search entirety in memory, using sorted lists. When it was initially written, years ago, that was deemed "good enough".
By the time I joined the company a little over a year ago, search requests were sometimes exceeding 2 minutes, and would be killed due to HTTP timeout (somehow users were OK with search taking a long time, they were just annoyed that now sometimes it didn't work at all). While I was working to rewrite the whole thing to push data to ES and do everything from there, the old system needed to keep running.
So I moved it over to PyPy. I did need to swap blist(C extension) for sortedcontainers (pure python), but that was a minimal change. Search got about 30% faster, enough to keep chugging along while the rewrite happened.
As a side note, for some reason, it's terrible for pytest — your tests will take literally 100x as long. If you trust PyPy's compatibility, I'd recommend running your tests with CPython even if you run PyPy in production.
Actually since CPython 3.6 (or maybe it's 3.5?) the same is true in CPython too, though I'd personally still advocate specifying OrderedDict if you particularly require that property anyway.
Not sure about PySide2..
Therefore until and unless PyPy has usable Qt bindings (e.g. PySide or PyQt), then unfortunately I need to stick with CPython :/
Here is the only PyPy related issue I found for PySide2: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/PYSIDE-535
PyQt doesn't have a bug tracker ¯\_(ツ)_/¯