I don’t see how the stable ABI works as a substitute for vendoring Python. A lot of other things can still vary even when the C API remains the same! (E.g. syntax, and stdlib behavior.)
On 6/9/2021 2:20 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 09. 06. 21 13:09, Paul Moore wrote:
>> Also, I often use the stable ABI when embedding, so that
>> I can replace the Python interpreter without needing to recompile my
>> application and redeploy new binaries everywhere (my use case is
>> pretty niche, though, so I wouldn't like to claim I represent a
>> typical user...).
> I hope this use case becomes non-niche. I would love it if embedders
> tell people to just use any Python they have lying around, instead of
> vendoring it (or more realistically, embedding JS or Lua instead).
I also hope it becomes non-niche, but I'd rather you started
embedding/vendoring CPython rather than using anything that just happens
to be laying around.
The number one issue that *all* of my customers (and their customers)
have is installation. For most of them, the best way to solve it is to
not make them install Python themselves, which in many cases means
vendoring. The more acceptable and easy we can make this process, the
more Python will be a viable choice against JS or Lua (though with all
the other C API, threading and initialization issues, it's unlikely that
embedding CPython is going to become significantly more attractive than
those two - even IronPython still lives on for embedding because it
works so well).
Python-Dev mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send an email to email@example.com
Message archived at https://firstname.lastname@example.org/message/36MZXQC3WGDXO6SFTPGT7RC34EMFPP6E/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/