RFC: Viper: yet another python implementation

John Max Skaller skaller at maxtal.com.au
Sun Aug 15 11:36:39 EDT 1999

On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:04:12 -0600, "John W. Stevens" <jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com> wrote:

>Phil Hunt wrote:

>> sorted dictionary loops, eg:

>If this last one is what you want, why not use either my B-Tree
>container class, or my Trie container class?

One of the goals of Viper is too eliminate 
the need for C modules There are several reasons
for this. One is that C modules are hard to implement,
another that the C API changes from CPython version
to version, another is that it isn't really as efficient as
whole program analysis, the API dependent on a _particular_ 
Python implementation (i.e. won't work with JPython),
and finally, it is hard to build a C module, so distributing
Python code including C modules is difficult for

This last point is the real killer. I have both a Linux and
NT box. I have no problem with building C modules
on Linux, but I don't _have_ a compiler on the NT box that
will build C modules compatible with the Python implementation
I have. [I have Borland C++, and gcc on the NT box,
but not MSC, which was used to build my NT based Python]

Pure python is easier to distribute. If it could be compiled
to be as fast as C modules, there is no need for the
portability headache.

Having said all that, I think it is worth providing a binding
to existing C modules, but I can't do everything at once,
and the extra work required to do the binding is too much
at the moment.

John Max Skaller                ph:61-2-96600850              
mailto:skaller at maxtal.com.au       10/1 Toxteth Rd 
http://www.maxtal.com.au/~skaller  Glebe 2037 NSW AUSTRALIA

More information about the Python-list mailing list