Personal thoughts about Pyston's outcome
Key takeaway:
<i>&quot;the [speed] difficulties come from Python&#x27;s extremely rich object model, not from anything about its dynamic scopes or dynamic types.  The problem is that every operation in Python will typically have multiple points at which the user can override the behavior, and these features are used, often very extensively.&quot;</i><p>Also, Kevin and Pyston&#x27;s team are too modest to state this directly in this article:
They made good and steady progress, but it&#x27;s taken them a long time.  A lot of that time was spent making them experts on Python runtime and Python JIT options.  With several more years of fulltime work we could have a JIT that we all use instead of CPython.<p>Pyston showed that certain features of Python make it slow and difficult to JIT.  The best case scenario for Python&#x27;s future would have been for Kevin and Pyston to work with the Python core team to decide how to tweak language features for speed (perhaps marking certain object modifications as being &quot;slow&quot; in the same way rust has an &quot;unsafe&quot; marker).  With Pyston shutting down, I think the horse of python speedups is out of the barn and is never coming back.<p>More discussion: 
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13534992" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13534992</a>