As this comment mentions Dash apps would not support lazy loaded imports until the underlying Dash library changes how it loads in callbacks and component libraries (the two features which would be most impacted here), but that doesn't mean there's no path to success. We've been discussing some ways we could resolve this internally and if this PEP is accepted we'd certainly go further to see if we can fully support lazy loaded imports (of both the Dash library itself/Dash component libraries and for relative imports in Dash apps).
Right now in python, you can move import statement inside a function. Lazy imports at top level are not needed. All lazy imports do is make you think less about what you are writing. If you like that, then just vibe code all of your stuff, and leave the language spec alone.
def my_func():
import my_mod
my_mod.do_stuff()
lazy import my_mod
def my_func():
my_mod.do_stuff()
What if we have a program where one feature works only when lazy imports are enabled and one feature only when lazy imports are disabled?
This is not a contrived concern. Let’s say I’m a maintainer of an open-source library and I choose to use lazy imports in my library. Because I’m volunteering my time, I don’t test whether my code works with eager imports.
Now, let’s say someone comes and builds an application on top of this library. It doesn’t work with lazy imports for some unknown reason. If they reach for a “force all imports” flag, their application might break in another mysterious way because the code they depend on is not built to work with eager imports. And even if my dependency doesn’t break, what about all the other packages the application may depend on?
The only solution here would be for the maintainer to ensure that their code works with both lazy and eager imports. However, this imposes a high maintenance cost and is part of the reason why PEP 690 was rejected. (And if your proposed solution was “don’t use libraries made by random strangers on the Internet”, boy do I have news for you...)
My point is that many things _will_ break if migrated to lazy imports. Whether they should have been written in Python in the first place is a separate question that isn’t relevant to this discussion.
I don't see how. It adds a new, entirely optional syntax using a soft keyword. The semantics of existing code do not change. Yes, yes, you anticipated the objection:
> What if these imports were transitive? ... How could you be sure that adding lazy imports wouldn't break any code downstream?
I would need to see concrete examples of how this would be a realistic risk in principle. (My gut reaction is that top-level code in libraries shouldn't be doing the kinds of things that would be problematic here, in the first place. In my experience, the main thing they do at top level is just eagerly importing everything else for convenience, or to establish compatibility aliases.)
But if it were, clearly that's a breaking change, and the library bumps the major version and clients do their usual dependency version management. As you note, type hints work similarly. And "explicitly calling into typing APIs" is more common than you might think; https://pypistats.org/packages/pydantic exists pretty much to do exactly this. It didn't cause major problems.
> Import statements fundamentally have side effects, and when and how these side effects are applied will cause mysterious breakages that will keep people up for many nights.
They do have side effects that can be arbitrarily complex. But someone who opts in to changing import timing and encounters a difficult bug can just roll back the changes. It shouldn't cause extended debugging sessions unless someone really needs the benefits of the deferral. And people in that situation will have been hand-rolling their own workarounds anyway.
> Too many people in this thread hold the view of "importing {pandas, numpy, my weird module that is more tangled than an eight-player game of Twister} takes too long and I will gladly support anything that makes them faster".
I don't think they're under the impression that this necessarily makes things faster. Maybe I haven't seen the same comments you have.
Deferring imports absolutely would allow, for example, pip to do trivial tasks faster — because it could avoid importing unnecessary things at all. As things currently stand, a huge fraction of the vendored codebase will get imported pretty much no matter what. It's analogous to tree shaking, but implicitly, at runtime and without actually removing code.
Yes, this could be deferred to explicitly chosen times to get more or less the same benefit. It would also be more work.
Regarding risks in practice:
> Libraries such as PyTorch, Numba, NumPy, and SciPy, among others, did not seamlessly align with the deferred module loading approach. These libraries often rely on import side effects and other patterns that do not play well with Lazy Imports. The order in which Python imports could change or be postponed, often led to side effects failing to register classes, functions, and operations correctly. This required painstaking troubleshooting to identify and address import cycles and discrepancies.
This isn't precisely the scenario I described above, but it is a concrete example of how deferred imports can cause issues that are difficult to debug.
Regarding performance benefits:
> At Meta, the quest for faster model training has yielded an exciting milestone: the adoption of Lazy Imports and the Python Cinder runtime. ... we’ve been able to significantly improve our model training times, as well as our overall developer experience (DevX) by adopting Lazy Imports and the Python Cinder runtime.
This is not fearmongering. There is a reason why the only flavor of Python with lazy imports comes from Meta, which is one of the most well-resourced companies in the world.
Too many people in this thread hold the view of "importing {pandas, numpy, my weird module that is more tangled than an eight-player game of Twister} takes too long and I will gladly support anything that makes them faster". I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that most people who hold this opinion are unable to describe how Python's import system works, let alone describe how to implement lazy imports.
PEP 690 describes a number of drawbacks. For example, lazy imports break code that uses decorators to add functions to a central registry. This behavior is crucial for Dash, a popular library for building frontends that has been around for more than a decade. At import-time, Dash uses decorators to bind a JavaScript-based interface to callbacks written in Python. If these imports were made lazy, Dash would break. Frontends used by thousands, if not millions of people, would immediately become unresponsive.
You may cry, "But lazy imports are opt-in! Developers can choose to opt-out of lazy imports if it doesn't work for them." What if these imports were transitive? What if our frontend needed to be completely initialized before starting a critical process, else it would cause a production outage? What if you were a maintainer of a library that was used by millions of people? How could you be sure that adding lazy imports wouldn't break any code downstream? Many people made this argument for type hints, which is sensible because type hints have no effect on runtime behavior*. This is not true for lazy imports; import statements exist in essentially every nontrivial Python program, and changing them to be lazy will fundamentally alter runtime behavior.
This is before we even get to the rest of the issues the PEP describes, which are even weirder and crazier than this. This is a far more difficult undertaking than many people realize.
---
* You can make a program change its behavior based on type annotations, but you'd need to explicitly call into typing APIs to do this. Discussion about this is beyond the scope of this post.