- cross-posted to:
- python@lemmy.ml
- python@sh.itjust.works
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- cross-posted to:
- python@lemmy.ml
- python@sh.itjust.works
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
You must log in or register to comment.
Honestly twice as slow as CPython is probably quite an achievement. Even so I can’t imagine many people can tolerate their code running that slow. I’m not really seeing the use case for this. On the web you can use Typescript, which is a better language and far more mature for that use case.
It looks like it’s 3x faster than the previous cpython wasm compilation. Recall that most of the performance improvements in python have been done in the last ~2 releases.
My distro is debian based so it’s still on 3.10 which I would guess this new wasm implementation is much closer to in performance.
Compiling to wasm also means that you can distribute a binary rather than needing people to have python installed.
Compiling to wasm also means that you can distribute a binary rather than needing people to have python installed.
I don’t know that I’d say that’s true? wasm itself is not a binary format.
