As much as I respect and appreciate Pypy, BIND is one of the core foundational pieces of the internet. It needs to be bulletproof and robust. I don't think Pypy itself qualifies as a mainstream enough language for them to build BIND on. This isn't a slight on Pypy, because the core problem is simply that it hasn't been around for long enough and subjected to enough stress to earn entry into the highest of the high tiers of reliable software. That's not a bad thing per se, and it can be fixed, but in the meantime, ISC has to take the situation as it is now, not how it might be in five years.

> I don't think Pypy itself qualifies as a mainstream enough language for them to build BIND on.

Minor pedantry: PyPy is not a language. It's an alternative compiler/runtime for Python.

I was echoing the terms used in the post. I thought it was clearer than going into a long comment about how Python is mature, at least in its CPython implementation, but the PyPy implementation is not, and when the blog post said "language" they really meant "implementation" because language is not implementation, yada yada yada.

Performance isn't a quality that is either present or not present, it's a quantity you can measure with a number as you did. It's true that pypy is much faster than CPython, but it's also true that C++ is much faster than pypy. Cpython is normally about 2 orders of magnitude slower than C++ on computationally intensive workloads, and if pypy get that down to a single order of magnitude that's great... but not enough here.

[citation needed] You're mostly talking nonsense. PyPy is usually 20-100x faster on the numeric workloads I measured than CPython, while the difference is significantly smaller on non-numeric workloads. The difference between C++ and CPython is also smaller.