Honestly if someone irons out the edge cases, python probably could JIT compile to machine code via cython. It would take a fair bit of memory and probably a bit slow on low powered systems but it would be so much faster if cached.
Technically I think python already has an intermediate step that it uses before it starts running a script that compiles it into a lower-ish language (at least the cpython interpreter does this, it probably isn’t a part of the language specification though)
The actual line between JIT languages and interpreted languages is pretty thin since I think most interpreted languages do something similar to minimize the amount that needs to be done at runtime
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
Honestly if someone irons out the edge cases, python probably could JIT compile to machine code via cython. It would take a fair bit of memory and probably a bit slow on low powered systems but it would be so much faster if cached.
Technically I think python already has an intermediate step that it uses before it starts running a script that compiles it into a lower-ish language (at least the cpython interpreter does this, it probably isn’t a part of the language specification though)
The actual line between JIT languages and interpreted languages is pretty thin since I think most interpreted languages do something similar to minimize the amount that needs to be done at runtime
I think at this point in time it JIT compiles into byte code and cached which is more efficiently interpreted the next time that function is called.