Why I love python.
kosh at aesaeion.com
Fri Aug 13 21:23:14 CEST 2004
On Friday 13 August 2004 12:33 pm, Nick Patavalis wrote:
> On 2004-08-13, Reinhold Birkenfeld
> Yes, that's exactly what I meant. The only solution in such a case
> would be for the environment to call the compiler at run time, and
> compile classobj then. This means of course that in such cases the
> compiler must be included in the "executable".
Why is there a need for a stand alone executable? At least on all the unixes
whether something is executable is just determined by the executable bit on
the file. I can execute a python program just as transparently as one in
compiled c, c++, etc. I really don't see the point of that.
Overall I would rather that there was more reliance on runtimes and that psyco
was improved to the point that it was just part of python and could save its
jited versions of code for reuse later. That way I can upgrade libraries, the
runtime etc and as long as the system is still source compatible the
application would still work and it would speed up as it ran as things where
compiled to optimized code as needed.
Overall I think that standalone binaries are bad long term. I would prefer
source compatibility since that is more flexible long term. With a jit the
code should run just as fast but it would make things like security update
and updating pieces of the system simpler.
> I believe this has been done in other dynamic languages.
> Typed-extensions, as you mention, would also help.
More information about the Python-list