# PEP 836: JIT Go Brrr: The Path to a Supported JIT Compiler for CPython

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-836-jit-go-brrr-the-path-to-a-supported-jit-compiler-for-cpython/108010>\
**Category:** PEPs\
**Created:** [July 3, 2026, 4:45pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-836-jit-go-brrr-the-path-to-a-supported-jit-compiler-for-cpython/108010 "2026-07-03T16:45:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 63

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![brettcannon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/brettcannon/32/34895_2.png) [@brettcannon](https://discuss.python.org/u/brettcannon)\
**Post date:** [October 20, 2026, 4:57pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-836-jit-go-brrr-the-path-to-a-supported-jit-compiler-for-cpython/108010/63 "2026-10-20T16:57:52Z")

</div>

> [@duncathan](#):
>
> Well, strictly speaking, there is still a window for an alternative PEP to be submitted and discussed (until December 5th, I believe?) according to the timeline laid out by the SC. Of course that’s a very narrow window in PEP timescales, but the possibility does exist until then, no?

Not really as all the people actively driving the JIT were either authors on that PEP or contributors to it. Plus this decision was made at the core dev sprints where most of the people working on the JIT currently are, so they would have made the decision as a group (otherwise the PEP would have just been handed over to someone else to continue working on it).

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-836-jit-go-brrr-the-path-to-a-supported-jit-compiler-for-cpython/108010)._