Hacker News Reader

Yeah, it kind of reminded me the "python strict mode" they talked about before [1]. No designed to be cool but to be useful.

[1] https://instagram-engineering.com/python-at-scale-strict-mod...

View on HN

This is something that people have known for a long time: a lot of money has been spent on making compilers make fast code. For many intents and purposes we know what kind of reasoning we want to be able to do to produce fast code. Strict modules is probably one of the sinples yet efficient optimizations you can do: being able to reason about where and what something is without having to do an expensive lookup every time it is used is brain dead simple to understand.

Yet many of the languages that evolved as "scripting languages" threw much of that knowledge out. In the middle of the 90s we knew how to make fast dynamic languages. Maybe not as crazy dynamic as something like ruby, but not far off. Or at least, they had the sense to codify it as a separate thing (CLOS in common lisp comes to mind).

Something like SBCL is more dynamic than you need(TM), yet produces code that is often at least an order of magnitude faster than python.

Yes, Static Python especially relies heavily on strict modules, since they enable us to perform module-local analysis, which enables some cool optimizations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com