[Python-ideas] stdlib with its own release cycle ?

[geremy condra]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2009/10/26 geremy condra <debatem1 at gmail.com>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 2009/10/26 geremy condra <debatem1 at gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2009/10/26 geremy condra <debatem1 at gmail.com>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [snip...]
>> >> >> > Firstly, although you are correct that .NET supports a managed
>> >> >> > variant
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > C++ (that runs 'on .NET') and it is the same set of tools that you
>> >> >> > also
>> >> >> > use
>> >> >> > to compile native code (unmanaged C/C++) this has nothing to do
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > .NET.
>> >> >> > Python for Windows is compiled with the Visual C++ compiler but it
>> >> >> > doesn't
>> >> >> > run on .NET. .NET doesn't even use the MSVCRT that compiled native
>> >> >> > code
>> >> >> > links against - something that causes Ironclad 'difficulties' when
>> >> >> > managed
>> >> >> > and native code need to share file handles.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ironclad itself has binary compatibility with Python C extensions,
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > don't need to be recompiled. It uses the .NET FFI (P/Invoke) to
>> >> >> > work
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > these extensions and on the JVM would use its FFI.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > My understanding is that Android now allows native code, so if
>> >> >> > Dalvik
>> >> >> > has
>> >> >> > the same FFI APIs and you can compile the Python extensions for it
>> >> >> > *and*
>> >> >> > Jython runs on Dalvik (not currently the case I believe?) then it
>> >> >> > could
>> >> >> > work...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No need. Java has the Java Native Interface, which is supported in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> Android Native Development Kit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > No need for what? If you are using Jython *and* you want to use
>> >> > Python C
>> >> > extensions then something like Ironclad would be needed.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you aren't using Jython then no need - but there are lots of good
>> >> > reasons
>> >> > for *wanting* to use Jython.
>> >> >
>> >> > Michael
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I wasn't clear- there's no need to get Jython running on
>> >> Android,
>> >> since you can wrap the class libraries using JNI.
>> >
>> >
>> > There are all sorts of reasons to want to use Jython and being on a
>> > fundamentally Java oriented platform sounds like just about the best
>> > reason
>> > I can imagine.
>> >
>> > Michael
>>
>> But Jython doesn't run on Dalvik, so its kind of a nonissue.
>
> I was responding to your comment that there was no need to port it. If there
> is a reason to use it then there is a reason to port it.
>
> Michael

Unfortunately, according to people who know Jython much better
than I, the amount of work involved would be analogous to the
effort involved to write Jython in the first place. Since I doubt
strongly that I have either the technical or political skills to
develop and maintain my own Python implementation, I prefer
the escape hatch. Your mileage apparently does vary.

Geremy Condra