In a recent post, Stefan Behnel questioned the point of static compilation and suggests that in order to be useful, a static compiler needs to add something on top.

This is going to be a rebuttal.

Compatibility, I mean it First of all, let me start out, by saying that Nuitka is intended to be the fully optimizing compiler of Python. The optimizing part is not yet true. Right now, it's probably a correct compiler of Python. Correct in the sense that it's compatible to CPython as far as possible. As examples of what I mean with compatibility: Nuitka will hold references to local variables of frames, when an exception is raised, and will release them only once the next exception is raised.

Nuitka will give the same error messages for all kinds of errors. For example, the parameter parsing of functions will be the same.

Nuitka provides all language constructs no matter how absurd or unused they are.

Compatibility != Slower While generally Nuitka will have a hard time to be faster and compatible to CPython, I don't have much concern about that. Using guards between optimistic, and less optimistic variants of code, there is no doubt in my head, that for programs, lots of code will only need very minimal type annotation and still receive respectable speedups. Of course, at this point, this is only speculation. But I somehow gather that the sentiment is that incompatible and fast need to go along. I totally dispute that.

Language Extensions Now, the "in addition" stuff, that Stefan is talking about. I don't see the point at all. It is quite obvious that everything you can say with cdef syntax, could also be said with a more Pythonic syntax. And if it were missing, it could be added. And where it's a semantic change, it should be frowned upon. For the Nuitka project, I never considered an own parser of Python. No matter how easy it would be, to roll your own, and I understand that Cython did that, it's always going to be wrong and it's work. Work that has no point. The CPython implementation exhibits and maintains the module ast that works just fine. For Python, if this were so really useful, such language extensions should be added to Python itself. If there were missing meaningful things, I contend they would best be added there, not in a fork of it. Note how ctypes and cffi have been added. When I created bindings for Ada code (C exports) to Python, it was so easy to do that in pure Python with ctypes. I so much enjoyed that. So, slow bindings are in my view really easy to create with plain Python now. Somebody ought to make a ".h" to ctypes / cffi declarations converter, once they are really faster to use (possibly due to Nuitka). For Nuitka it should be possible to accelerate these into direct calls and accesses. At which point, mixing generated C code and C include statements, will just be what it is, a source of bugs that Nuitka won't have. Note Further down, I will give examples of why I think that cdef is inferior to plain Python, even from a practical point of view.

Lack of Interpreter is bad Static compilation vs. interpretation as a discussion has little merits to me. I find it totally obvious that you don't need static compilation, but 2 other things: You may need interpretation. And may need speed. To me static code analysis and compilation are means to achieve that speed, but not intended to remove interpretation, e.g. plugins need to still work, no matter how deep the go. For Cython syntax there is no interpreter, is there? That makes it loose an important point. So it has to have another reason for using it, and that would be speed and probably convenience. Now suppose Nuitka takes over with these benefits, what would it be left with? Right. Nothing. At all. Well, of course legacy users. The orinal sin fall of PyRex - that is now Cython - is nothing that Nuitka should repeat.

No Lock-in The Cython language is so underspecified, I doubt anybody could make a compatible implementation. Should you choose to use it, you will become locked in. That means, if Cython breaks or won't work to begin with, you are stuck. That situation I totally despise. It seems an unnecessary risk to take. Not only, if your program does not work, you can't just try another compiler. You also will never really know, if it's either your fault or Cython's fault until you do know, whose fault it is. Find yourself playing with removing, adding, or re-phrasing cdef statements, until things work. Common. I would rather use PyPy or anything else, that can be checked with CPython. Should I ever encounter a bug with it, I can try CPython, and narrow down with it. Or I can try Jython, IronPython, or low and behold, Nuitka. I think, this totally makes it obvious, that static compilation of a non-Python language has no point to people with Python code. What I will always admit, is that Cython is (currently) the best way to create fast bindings, because Nuitka is not ready yet. But from my point of view, Cython has no point long term if a viable replacement that is Pythonic exists.

Python alone is a point So, if you leave out static compilation vs. interpretation and JIT compilation, what would be the difference between PyPy and Nuitka? Well, obviously PyPy people are a lot cooler and cleverer. Their design is really inspiring and impressive. My design and whole approach to Nuitka is totally boring in comparison. But from a practical standpoint, is there any difference? What is the difference between Jython and PyPy? The target VM it is. PyPy's or Java's. And performance it is, of course. So, with Python implementations all being similar, and just differing in targets, and performances, do they all have no point? I believe taken to the logical conclusion, that is what Stefan suggests. I of course think that PyPy, Nuitka, and Jython have have as much of a point, as CPython does.

Type Annotations done right And just for fun. This is making up a use cases of type annotations: plong = long if python_version < 3 else int @hints . signature ( plong , plong ) def some_function ( a ): return a ** 2 Notice how plong depends on an expression, that may become known during compile time or not. Should that turn out to be not possible, Nuitka can always generate code for both branches and branch when called. Or more complex and useful like this: def guess_signature ( func ): types = [ None ] emit = types . append for arg in inspect . getargnames ( func ): if arg == "l" : emit ( list ) elif arg == "f" : emit ( float ) elif arg == "i" : emit ( int ) else : hints . warning ( "Unknown type %s " % arg ) emit ( None ) return hints . signature ( * types ) def many_hints ( func ): # Won't raise exception. hints . doesnot_raise ( func ) # Signature to be inferred by conventions guess_signature ( func )( func ) # No side effects hints . pure ( func ) @many_hints def some_func1 ( f ): return f + 2.0 @many_hints def some_func2 ( i ): return i + 2 @many_hints def some_func3 ( l ): return i + [ 2 ] This is just a rough sketch, but hopefully you get the idea. Do this with Cython, can you? The hints can be put into decorators, which may be discovered as inlinable, which then see more inlines. For this to work best, the loop over the compile time constant code object, needs to be unrolled, but that appears quite possible. The signatures can therefore be done fully automatic. One could use prefix notation to indicate types. Another way would put fixed types for certain variable names. In Nuitka code, "node", "code", "context", etc. have always the same types. I suspect many programs are the same, and it would be sweet, if you could plug something in and check such types throughout all of the package. And then, what do you do then? Well, you can inspect these hints at run time as well, they work with CPython as well (though they won't make things faster, only will that find errors in your program), they will even work with PyPy, or at least not harm it. It will nicely JIT them away I suppose. Your IDE will like the code. syntax highlighting, auto indent will work. With every Python IDE. PyLint will find the bugs I made in that code up there. And Nuitka will compile it and benefit from the hints. My point here really is, that cdef is not flexible, not standard, not portable. It should die. It totally is anti-Pythonic to me.

Elsewhere In Java land, people compile to machine code as well. They probably also - like stupid me - didn't understand that static compilation would have no point. Why do they do it? Why am I using compiled binaries done with their compiler then? And why didn't they take the chance to introduce ubercool cdef a-likes while doing it? They probably just didn't know better, did they? No seriously. A compiler is just a compiler. It takes a source code in a language and turns it into a package to execute. That may be a required or an optional step. I prefer optional for development turn around. It should try and make code execute as fast as it can. But it should not change the language. With Cython I have to compile. With Nuitka I could. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find another example of a compiler that extends the interpreted language compiled, just so there is a point in having it.