[Python-Dev] Python startup time

[Chris Jerdonek]

FYI, a lot of these ideas were discussed back in September and October of
2017 on this list if you search the subject lines for "startup" e.g.
starting here and here:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-September/149150.html
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-October/149670.html

At the end Guido kicked (at least part of) the discussion back to
python-ideas.

--Chris


On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Gregory P. Smith <greg at krypto.org> wrote:
> > I'd also like to see this concept somehow extended to decorators so that
> the
> > results of the decoration can be captured in the compiled pyc rather than
> > requiring execution at import time.  I realize that limits what
> decorators
> > can do, but the evil things they could do that this would eliminate are
> > things they just shouldn't be doing in most situations.  meaning: there
> > would probably be two types of decorators... colons seem to be all the
> rage
> > these days so we could add an @: operator for that. :P ... Along with a
> from
> > __future__ import to change the behavior or all decorators in a file from
> > runtime to compile time by default.
> >
> > from __future__ import compile_time_decorators  # we'd be unlikely to
> ever
> > change the default and break things, __future__ seems wrong
> >
> > @this_happens_at_compile_time(3)
> > def ...
> >
> > @:this_waits_until_runtime(5)
> > def ...
> >
> > Just a not-so-wild idea, no idea if this should become a PEP for 3.8.
> (the
> > : syntax is a joke - i'd prefer @@ so it looks like eyeballs)
>
> At this point, we're squarely in python-ideas territory, but there are
> some possibilities. Imagine popping this line of code at the bottom of
> your file:
>
> import importlib; importlib.freeze_module()
>
> as a declaration that the dictionary for this module is now locked in
> and can be dumped out in whatever form is most efficient. Effectively,
> you're stating that you do not need any sort of dynamism (that call
> could be easily disabled for testing), and that, if the optimization
> breaks anything, you accept responsibility for it.
>
> How this would be implemented, I'm not sure, but that's no different
> from the @: idea.
>
> ChrisA
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/
> chris.jerdonek%40gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180503/ae46f355/attachment.html>