> who know you don’t turn a project with millions of users around on a dime
Hasn’t this gil/nogil saga been going on for ~decades? What about fixing packaging or limiting the C-extension interface? I have enormous sympathy of what the Python maintainers are up against, but “on a dime” seems hard to justify.
Python nerfing C extensions would be like McDonald's deciding to de-emphasize burgers on their menu. Sure, other foods are healthier and get more positive buzz on Twitter. But it turns out that the burgers are still the main thing bringing people to the restaurant.
I wasn’t talking about nerfing C-extensions. You can get the same power out of a smaller, well-defined interface that would give the interpreter a lot more leeway for optimization. This optimizations would therefore make native Python packages more feasible, making the ecosystem less dependent on C extensions. Anyway, I don’t think people use Python because of the C-extensions packages (although there are certainly some exceptions e.g., pandas), I think people use C extensions because the native performance is so poor.
This analogy is I think also favourable for the sea change: cecause we need to cut down on beef use due to climate reasons, and unless we plan to crash the climate, the end of bargain priced meat means that McDonalds needs to switch from meat to other kinds of burgers.
Hasn’t this gil/nogil saga been going on for ~decades? What about fixing packaging or limiting the C-extension interface? I have enormous sympathy of what the Python maintainers are up against, but “on a dime” seems hard to justify.