Talk:PyPy

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). European Union Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

fundamentally, an interpreted Python interpreter will always "really" be running the C code (or whatever) that the original interpreter runs. Unless, of course, you detach the abstraction. How can you do that? How can you detach my thoughts from the meat inside which they occur? The answer is: nirvanna. PyPy can exist without the interpreter it is running on by attaining Nirvanna, or no place. How does it do that? First of all, it has to FREE itself of worldly thoughts. The python interpreter should be running an EMPTY PROGRAM. Then, it can be detached from the worldly (C) process that it arose under, into pure nirvanna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf? Lol. Devourer09 (t·c) 21:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this statement from the article, here I explain why. PyPy is not a meta-circular evaluator, it is just written in a Python subset, but it does implement Python features, instead of reusing directly those available in RPython. And it needs to do so, since many Python features are not available in RPython. The introduction of the paper PyPy’s Approach to Virtual Machine Construction, by Armin Rigo and Samuele Pedroni, contrasts their approach to the one of meta-circular evaluators. --Blaisorblade (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a new logo for PyPy of a snake eating itself. Can someone update this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.220.22 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a useful reference if anyone wants to incorporate the material into the article or help cite statements already written there. Mostly this is just a reminder for myself if I ever get a chance to come back to this article and edit it. Devourer09 (t·c) 21:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some day this article will be improved by adding reliable sources. Luckily there are several papers by computer scientists who appear to use PyPy for one purpose or another. PyPy is also described briefly in some instructional books about the Python language. These works don't usually go into much detail, they give only a few sentences. Here are a bunch of links to papers that I found. People who work on the PyPy article may be able to see if any of these could usefully be added. I am assuming that the proceedings of computer science conferences can be treated as reliable sources:

— EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article is no longer just a "lowly-unimportant stub" and have since upgraded it's status to B.

But still is tagged both with {{notability|date=October 2011}} and {{primary sources|date=October 2011}} that, I feel should be removed.

Does anyone else 👍agree ? or 👎disagree ?

--Mkouklis (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree on all counts. This article is "start" class at best. There are no reliable independent sources, and, hence, the notability is severely in doubt. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some independent magazine / news coverage, which in addition to PyPy's field significance and academic coverage should be more than enough to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion. In terms of quality assessment, the article still has notable content gaps, which puts it below B-class, but the structure, sourcing and style is more developed than Start-class, so i'll rate it as C-class until the gaps are filled. --Piet Delport (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article really should make the effort to explain that apparent conundrum and why is indeed true. I admit I an not up to snuff to take on the task myself but it should be included in the article. Even if the explanation ends up being hard to understand, at least some people will understand it and others will appreciate at least some sort of attempt at explaining it which is what I was looking for when I looked up this article. --Cab88 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a shot in the lead section. -- intgr [talk] 22:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Current PyPy versions are translated an intermediate representation, RPython, into C code, and then compiled. " -- The most important sentence in the article and it isn't even a sentence, just meaningless gibberish. What it replaced was a sentence, but still trash. "PyPy versions are translated" is nonsense ... -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the lead section. Hope its clearer. Pj quil (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the previous introduction was a bit confusing. I wrote a new one which mentions the following:

• PyPy is faster than CPython
• PyPy is faster because it's a JIT compiler
• Code which uses C extensions doesn't necessarily run faster in PyPy
• PyPy is the product of a technique called meta-tracing which transforms interpreters into Tracing JIT compilers
• PyPy's meta-tracing toolchain is called RPython

Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.54.173 (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When reading the article, it is first claimed that "PyPy's meta-tracing toolchain is called RPython." Later, it is stated that "the PyPy interpreter itself is written in a restricted subset of Python called RPython (Restricted Python)." So, is RPython a toolchain, or a restricted subset of Python, or both? —Kri (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]