Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah that was my first thing. Wait a minute you run a compiler on it? It's literally compiled code, not direct. Which is fine, but yeah, overselling what it is/does.

Still cool, but I would definitely ease back the first claim.

I was going to say it does make me wonder how much a pain a direct processor like this would be in terms of having to constantly update it to adapt to the new syntax/semantics everytime there's a new release.

Also - are there any processors made to mimic ASTs directly? I figure a Lisp machine does something like that, but not quite... Though I've never even thought to look at how that worked on the hardware side.

EDIT: I'm not sure AST is the correct concept, exactly, but something akin to that... Like building a physical structure of the tree and process it like an interpreter would. I think something like that would require like a real-time self-programming FPGA?



PyXL deliberately avoids tying itself to Python’s high-level syntax or rapid surface changes.

The system compiles Python source to CPython ByteCode, and then from ByteCode to a hardware-friendly instruction set. Since it builds on ByteCode—not raw syntax—it’s largely insulated from most language-level changes. The ByteCode spec evolves slowly, and updates typically mean handling a few new opcodes in the compiler, not reworking the hardware.

Long-term, the hardware ISA is designed to remain fixed, with most future updates handled entirely in the toolchain. That separation ensures PyXL can evolve with Python without needing silicon changes.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: