[crabbone]

Again and again, the most important question is "why?" not "how?". Python isn't made to be fast. If you wanted a language that can go fast, you needed to build it into the language from the start: give developers tools to manage memory layout, give developers tools to manage execution flow, hint the compiler about situations that present potential for optimization, restrict dispatch and polymorphism, restrict semantics to fewer interpretations.

Python has none of that. It's a hyper-bloated language with extremely poor design choices all around. Many ways of doing the same thing, many ways of doing stupid things, no way of communicating programmer's intention to the compiler... So why even bother? Why not use a language that's designed by a sensible designer for this specific purpose?

The news about performance improvements in Python just sound to me like spending useful resources on useless goals. We aren't going forward by making Python slightly faster and slightly more bloated, we just make this bad language even harder to get rid of.

[Danmctree]

The frustrating thing is that the math and AI support in the python ecosystem is arguably the best. These happen to also be topics where performance is critical and where you want things to be tight.

c++ has great support too but often isn't usable in communities involving researchers and juniors because it's too hard for them. Startup costs are also much higher.

Ans so you're often stuck with python.

We desperately need good math/AI support in faster languages than python but which are easier than c++. c#? Java?

[pjmlp]

It is kind of ironic that this is now the Zeitgeist, while in the 1990's my university used to teach C++ to first year students, and I learned it as high school student with Turbo C++ 1.0 for MS-DOS, about a year after it was made commercially available, later acquiring Turbo C++ 1.5 for Windows 3.1 with student discount.