https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46385526

Also this time, I'm pretty confident because there are two perf improvements here: the dispatch logic, and the inlining. MSVC can actually convert switch-case interpreters to threaded code automatically if some conditions are met [1]. However, it does not seem to do that for the current CPython interpreter. In this case, I suspect the CPython interpreter loop is just too complicated to meet those conditions. The key point also that we would be relying on MSVC again to do its magic, but this tail calling approach gives more control to the writers of the C code. The inlining is pretty much impossible to convince MSVC to do except with `__forceinline` or changing things to use macros [2]. However, we don't just mark every function as forceinline in CPython as it might negatively affect other compilers.

[1]: https://github.com/faster-cpython/ideas/issues/183 [2]: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/121263

If getting the optimal code is relying on getting a pile of heuristics to go in your favor, you’re more vulnerable to the possibility that someday the heuristics will go the other way. Tail duplication is what we want in case, but it’s possible that a future version of the compiler could decide that it’s not desired because of the increased code size.

With the new design, the Python interpreter can express the desired shape of the machine code more directly, leaving it less vulnerable to the whims of the optimizer.

    imgui.text(f"Counter = {counter}")
    if imgui.button("increment counter"):
        counter += 1

    _, name = imgui.input_text("Your name?", name)
    imgui.text(f"Hello {name}!")

MSVC's support for musttail is hot off the press:

> The [[msvc::musttail]] attribute, introduced in MSVC Build Tools version 14.50, is an experimental x64-only Microsoft-specific attribute that enforces tail-call optimization. [1]

MSVC Build Tools version 14.50 was released last month, and it only took a few weeks for the CPython crew to turn that around into a performance improvement.

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/attributes?view=ms...

JavaScript is JIT’ed where CPython is not. Pypy has JIT and is faster, but I think is incompatible with C extensions.

I think Pythons threading model also adds complexity to optimizing where JavaScripts single thread is easier to optimize.

I would also say there’s generally less impetus to optimize CPython. At least until WASM, JavaScript was sort of stuck with the performance the interpreter had. Python had more off-ramps. You could use pypy for more pure Python stuff, or offload computationally heavy stuff to a C extension.

I think there are some language differences that make JavaScript easier to optimize, but I’m not super qualified to speak on that.

Because JS’s centrality to the web and V8’s speed’s centrality to Google’s push to avoid other platform owners controlling the web via platform-default browsers meant virtually unlimited resources were spent in optimizing V8 at a time when the JS language itself was basically static; Python has never had the same level of investment and has always spent some of its smaller resources on advancing the language rather than optimizing the implementation.

Also, because the JS legacy that needed to be supported through that is pure JS, whereas with CPython there is also a considerable ecosystem of code that deeply integrates with Python from the outside that must still be supported, and the interface used by that code limits the optimizations that can be applied. Faster Python interpreters exist that don’t support that external ecosystem, but they are less used because that ecosystem is a big part of Python’s value proposition.

First is the Google's manpower. Google somehow succeeds in writing fast software. Most Google products I use are fast in contrast to the rest of the ecosystem. It's possible that Google simply did a better job.

The second is CPython legacy. There are faster implementations of Python that completely implement the API (PyPy comes to mind), but there's a huge ecosystem of C extensions written with CPython bindings, which make it virtually impossible to break compatibility. It is possible that this legacy prevents many possible optimizations. On the other hand, V8 only needs to keep compatibility on code-level, which allows them to practically switch out the whole inside in incremental search for a faster version.

I might be wrong, so take what I said with a grain of salt.

Even "simple" stuff like field access in python may refer to multiple dynamically-mapped method resolution.

Also, the ffi-bindings of python, while offering a way to extend it with libraries written in c/c++/fortran/... , limit how freely the internals can be changed (see the bug-by-bug compatibility work done for example by pypy, just to name an example, with some constraint that limit some optimizations)

Also Python has a de facto stable(ish) C ABI for extensions that is 1) heavily used by popular libraries, and 2) makes life more difficult for the JIT because the native code has all the same expressive power wrt Python objects, but JIT can't do code analysis to ensure that it doesn't use it.

It's in essence a histogram for the distribution, with smoothing, and mirrored on each side.

It looks nice, but is not without well-deserved opposition because 1) the use of smoothing can hide the actual distribution, 2) mirroring contains no extra information, while taking up space, and implying the extra space contains information, and 3) when shown vertically, too often causes people to exclaim it looks like a vulva.

In an HN discussion on the topic, medstrom at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40766519 points to a half-violin plot at https://miro.medium.com/v2/1*J3Q4JKXa9WwJHtNaXRu-kQ.jpeg with the histogram on the left, and the half-violin on the right, which gives you a chance to see side-by-side presentation of the same data.

I’m sure with enough cajoling you can make the LLM spit out a technical blog post that isn’t discernibly slop - wanton emoji usage, clichés, self-aggrandizement, relentlessly chipper tone, short “punchy” paragraphs, an absence of depth, “it’s not just X—it’s a completely new Y” - but it must be at least a little tricky what with how often people don’t bother.

[ChatGPT, insert a complaint about how people need to ram LLMs into every discussion no matter how irrelevant here.]

Also the interpreter loop's dispatch is autogenerated and can be selected via configure flags. So there's almost no additional maintenance overhead. The main burden is the MSVC-specific changes we needed to get this working (amounting to a few hundred lines of code).

> Impact on debugging/profiling

I don't think there should be any, at least for Windows. Though I can't say for certain.