[Python-Dev] Re: The Other Py2.4 issue?

[Adam Bark]

Now this might sound a bit stupid but I've only been programming in
python for about 6 months and before that about the same on VB. Anyway
here goes, as python is built in C & C++ surely every piece of python
code has a corresponding piece of C/C++ albeit more complex. So would
it be possible to somehow make a program to convert the Python to C &
C++ which can then be compiled with a C/C++ compiler.

Adam


On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:09:27 +0100 (CET),
python-dev-request at python.org <python-dev-request at python.org> wrote:
> Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to
>        python-dev at python.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        python-dev-request at python.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        python-dev-owner at python.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Python-Dev digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places (Carlos Ribeiro)
>   2. Re: The other Py2.4 issue (Paul Moore)
>   3. Re: Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places (Carlos Ribeiro)
>   4. Re: Supporting Third Party Modules (was The other Py2.4
>      issue) (Bob Ippolito)
>   5. Re: The other Py2.4 issue (Carlos Ribeiro)
>   6. Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places (Fredrik Lundh)
>   7. Re: The other Py2.4 issue (Martin v. L?wis)
>   8. Re: Supporting Third Party Modules (was The other Py2.4
>      issue) (Martin v. L?wis)
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Carlos Ribeiro <carribeiro at gmail.com>
> To: Erik Heneryd <erik at heneryd.com>
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:14:09 -0200
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:10:58 +0100, Erik Heneryd <erik at heneryd.com> wrote:
> > Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > >>>fwiw, IDG's Computer Sweden,  "sweden's leading IT-newspaper" has a
> > >>>surprisingly big Python article in their most recent issue:
> > >>>
> > >>>    PYTHON FEELS WELL
> > >>>    Better performance biggest news in 2.4
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>and briefly interviews swedish zope-developer Johan Carlsson and Python-
> > >>>Ware co-founder Håkan Karlsson.
> > >>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > so I don't think you can blame Johan or Håkan...  the writer simply read the
> > > python.org material, and picked a couple of things that he found interesting
> > > (decorators and generator expressions may be a big thing for an experienced
> > > pythoneer, but they are probably a bit too obscure for a general audience...)
> >
> > I'm a bit puzzled by the last paragraph, where Python is grouped
> > together with PHP and Perl - names starting with p, being popular on
> > Linux and not having big, commercial backers.  The article then
> > concludes "Since Python is copyrighted, it's not truly open.  However,
> > it can be freely used and redistributed, even commercially."
> >
> > Huh?  Where did THAT come from?  You might argue the merits of Python
> > being associated with Perl/PHP, but it's a fact that it is.  But when it
> > is, it's seen as less free?
> 
> The author was probably referring to the old (and as AFAIK already
> solved) CRNI copyright issue that ocurred into the 1.x to 2.x series
> transition. It's amazing how old memes from Python keep being
> remembered and repeated, even years after the fact. It also
> illustrates something very important - the community is not doing a
> good job at spreading the news; perhaps we talk too much between
> ourselves, and too little with the outside market. IMHO the website is
> a great part of this, its message being more important to "sell"
> Python than the standard library or native .exes.
> 
> About the website, a note from my own experience: when I search for
> documentation on Python, I'm usually directed to some of the mirror of
> the main python.org site. To find it inside the main site, I have to
> use "site:python.org", or even "site:docs.python.org". Usually Google
> does a good job at ranking pages, and if it doesn't rank the main
> Python website very highly, it's because they're not being referred
> to. A campaign to ask people to put links back to the canonical
> documentation at the Python website would be nice.
> 
> --
> Carlos Ribeiro
> Consultoria em Projetos
> blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com
> blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com
> mail: carribeiro at gmail.com
> mail: carribeiro at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com>
> To: Christian Tismer <tismer at stackless.com>
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:26:49 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] The other Py2.4 issue
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:57:55 +0100, Christian Tismer
> <tismer at stackless.com> wrote:
> > Armin Rigo wrote:
> 
> > > Hum, this is getting into a Linux-vs-Windows argument.  I don't want to invest
> > > time and money on Windows tools just to compile my extension module for
> > > Windows users...
> 
> First of all, I'm assuming this is a timing issue. If I understood
> your initial posting, your concern was that people wanted Windows
> build of your extension *now*, and it was going to take you time to
> make it available.
> 
> That's a different issue from you not having the facilities to build
> the Windows installers at all, where you rely on 3rd parties making
> builds available.
> 
> As Martin points out, ultimately the provision of Windows binaries is
> an issue for the extension project - is the demand high enough to
> justify the effort, can you find tools and/or a helper, etc etc.
> 
> But the former issue (how quickly you can provide binaries, assuming
> that you will do so ultimately) is more relevant for python-dev.
> Specifically, because lack of binary extensions can be a barrier to
> take-up of the new version. Certainly, in the past, you could pretty
> much guarantee that there would be very few Windows users testing beta
> releases, because pywin32 binaries weren't available. With 2.4, I have
> at least one system I'd upgrade *now* but for the lack of a critical
> extension in binary form (I haven't yet had the time to try to adapt
> the build process to mingw for myself).
> 
> > Maybe we can set this up as a service?
> 
> That sounds like a good idea. What I'd suggest is needed is a website
> where the following can take place:
> 
> 1. People have a way of posting rquests for particular modules.
> 2. Installers can be uploaded to satisfy those requests.
> 3. There is somewhere to put step-by-step "build it yourself"
> instructions, using free components, so that people *without* access
> to VS.NET can make progress themselves. Obviously, if a particular
> extension can't be built with free compilers, then binaries or access
> to VS.NET are the only options.
> 
> The installers should be clearly noted as having no warranty or
> support implied, to encourage people to offer binaries they have built
> without feeling that they are taking on a support burden. Conversely,
> as soon as "official" binaries are available from the extension
> project, the binaries available here should be removed (and replaced
> with a link to the official site) to reinforce the "unofficial" nature
> of the binaries provided here.
> 
> The biggest potential issue with such a site is clearly validation.
> I've no idea how to make something like this work without it being a
> major virus risk. Which may, sadly, be enough to kill the idea :-(
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Carlos Ribeiro <carribeiro at gmail.com>
> To: "python-dev at python.org" <python-dev at python.org>
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:32:03 -0200
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places
> Hello all,
> 
> Just to complement my previous remarks, I would like to point out how
> do a competing language defines itself in its own website. The
> perl.org website has a simple faq that is a good piece of marketing.
> What follows are direct quotes, just to point out how ot handle the
> market perception about their quality & speed.
> 
> -- "Perl takes the best features from other languages, such as C, awk,
> sed, sh, and BASIC, among others."
> 
> (A claim can't possibly be any more generic than this. Strangely
> enough, it mentions only older languages -- not Java, C++, or even
> Python (!). This is possibly a sign of an old quote, but anyway: it
> has a good marketing effect, specially for non-techies.)
> 
> -- "Perl can be embedded into web servers to speed up processing by as
> much as 2000%."
> 
> (BTW, this quote is embarrassing misleading -- it probably means that
> Perl is 20x slower when started on a request basis by the web server,
> and that embedding it will accelerate response by a huge factor. I'm
> sure non-techies will read it as "Perl is able to accelerate my server
> 20x!")
> 
> Of course, the point here is not Perl-bashing. The point here is that
> we should be able to "sell" Python better than we do now, even without
> the need to resort to such poor measures. I'm sure the Python
> community does have good & creative people that can write a good
> "selling" FAQ for Python, emphasizing the main points of the language.
> 
> For those who believe that a non-profit project should not do any
> marketing, a reminder. If the perception about Python is one of a slow
> language, it's much more difficult to find places where you can use
> Python. In the long run, many of us may be forced to work with other
> languages & tools, just because that's where the money is. I
> personally take it a matter of personal interest, because I know how
> hard it is to "sell" Python to companies here in Brazil.
> 
> --
> Carlos Ribeiro
> Consultoria em Projetos
> blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com
> blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com
> mail: carribeiro at gmail.com
> mail: carribeiro at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com>
> To:  "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de>
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:46:18 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Supporting Third Party Modules (was The other Py2.4 issue)
> 
> On Dec 12, 2004, at 11:02 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> 
> > Bob Ippolito wrote:
> >>> I believe this is not implementable: How can the DLL know which
> >>> Python
> >>> DLL to use?
> >> Well for py2app on Mac OS X, I wrote an executable stub that chooses
> >> a Python runtime from an XML file, looks up and binds a few symbols
> >> from it dynamically, and then starts doing stuff.
> >
> > While that would work, I think this is inappropriate for this specific
> > issue: we want to write extension modules which are independent of
> > the Python version, and might even be used with multiple Python
> > installations on the same system. In that case, adding configuration
> > files won't work, as each usage of the extension might require a
> > different Python DLL.
> 
> Yes, of course, I was talking about the executable, not extensions.  On
> Mac OS X 10.3+, the linker flag -undefined dynamic_lookup allows
> extensions to link to no Python whatsoever.  The extensions will just
> find the symbols it needs from some other image already loaded into the
> process at runtime.  If it weren't for the "forced" ABI
> incompatibility, we'd already have extensions that work
> cross-Python-major-version (assuming they used a safe subset of
> functions and structures).
> 
> -bob
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Carlos Ribeiro <carribeiro at gmail.com>
> To: Martin v. Löwis <martin at v.loewis.de>
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:53:10 -0200
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] The other Py2.4 issue
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:40:22 +0100, Martin v. Löwis <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> > If none of your users volunteers to do the build for you, I would stop
> > worrying about the Windows users.
> 
> Sorry, Martin. I understand your point, but I think you are not being
> realistic. I for myself took the decision to use only free tools for
> my own development, but I still have to suport my Windows customers. I
> can't force them to change to Linux. I don't own a copy of MSVC. Also,
> one of the reasons to choose a third part module is to save time. The
> moment I am required to recompile everything myself I'm losing this
> convenience. This of course impacts my ability to focus on my own
> work, and so the story goes.
> 
> I'm not saying that module authors should work for free just to save
> me some time & hassle. It's fair if an author decides to release a
> Linux-only module. But again -- this is not realistic. The world has a
> lot of Windows users, and I depend on them for my own income. If I
> can't find a good set of Python tools for my projects, what should I
> do? Picking another language is not a choice, mind you :-)
> 
> All in all, I sincerely hope that this discussion end up in a high
> note. I'm not qualified to talk about the particulars of C compilers &
> development environments, but as a Python user, I have hope that a
> good solution will be found to make the process of building Python
> extensions for Windows more convenient. The dream scenario is not to
> require recompiling, at least inside the same major release (2.4 to
> 2.5, for example). That would be really great.
> 
> --
> Carlos Ribeiro
> Consultoria em Projetos
> blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com
> blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com
> mail: carribeiro at gmail.com
> mail: carribeiro at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Fredrik Lundh" <fredrik at pythonware.com>
> To: python-dev at python.org
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:53:27 +0100
> Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places
> > . Multiple assignment is slower than individual assignment.  For
> > example "x,y=a,b" is slower than "x=a; y=b".  However, multiple
> > assignment is faster for variable swaps.  For example, "x,y=y,x" is
> > faster than "t=x; x=y; y=t".
> 
> marginally faster in 2.4, a lot slower in earlier versions.  maybe you
> should mark sections that rely on 2.4-specific optimizations, so that
> people who use earlier versions don't end up slowing their programs
> down...
> 
> </F>
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de>
> To: Carlos Ribeiro <carribeiro at gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:06:44 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] The other Py2.4 issue
> Carlos Ribeiro wrote:
> >>If none of your users volunteers to do the build for you, I would stop
> >>worrying about the Windows users.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, Martin. I understand your point, but I think you are not being
> > realistic. I for myself took the decision to use only free tools for
> > my own development, but I still have to suport my Windows customers. I
> > can't force them to change to Linux. I don't own a copy of MSVC. Also,
> > one of the reasons to choose a third part module is to save time. The
> > moment I am required to recompile everything myself I'm losing this
> > convenience. This of course impacts my ability to focus on my own
> > work, and so the story goes.
> 
> I did not suggest that *all* your Windows users should recompile
> your module - just a single one would be sufficient.
> 
> > I'm not saying that module authors should work for free just to save
> > me some time & hassle. It's fair if an author decides to release a
> > Linux-only module. But again -- this is not realistic. The world has a
> > lot of Windows users, and I depend on them for my own income. If I
> > can't find a good set of Python tools for my projects, what should I
> > do? Picking another language is not a choice, mind you :-)
> 
> As I said: Find a volunteer that has the necessary build infrastructure,
> and have that volunteer build the extension for you.
> 
> > The dream scenario is not to
> > require recompiling, at least inside the same major release (2.4 to
> > 2.5, for example). That would be really great.
> 
> That is guaranteed. Extensions built for 2.4 will certainly continue
> to work in 2.4.1, and later 2.4.x. They will stop working with 2.5
> (as they are linked with python24.dll).
> 
> Regards,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de>
> To: Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com>
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:09:05 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Supporting Third Party Modules (was The other Py2.4 issue)
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
> > Yes, of course, I was talking about the executable, not extensions.  On
> > Mac OS X 10.3+, the linker flag -undefined dynamic_lookup allows
> > extensions to link to no Python whatsoever.
> 
> It's the same on SysV ELF shared libraries, and in most other unices.
> 
> > The extensions will just
> > find the symbols it needs from some other image already loaded into the
> > process at runtime.  If it weren't for the "forced" ABI incompatibility,
> > we'd already have extensions that work cross-Python-major-version
> > (assuming they used a safe subset of functions and structures).
> 
> Are you talking about a forced ABI incompatibility, beyond the Windows
> issue of linking with a specific pythonxy.dll?
> 
> On Unix, you certainly can have extensions across Python major versions.
> 
> Regards,
> Martin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> 
> 
>