[OT] Compilable Python-like language?

Peter Hansen peter at engcorp.com
Sun Mar 21 07:05:50 CET 2004

Peter Hansen wrote:

> Carl Banks wrote:
>> On an abstract level, this is true.  On a practical level, when
>> someone asks for, or refers to, a language that "compiles to binary"
>> (OP's exact words), we know what he's referring to.
> About two years ago (if I recall), someone else asked for basically
> the same thing.  After some back and forth discussion, it became
> apparent that this person didn't really care about the "compiled"
> part, but actually was only interested in distributing his program
> without needing a separate interpreter installed.  The answers then
> became obvious, but before that there was a lot of misunderstanding
> going on.  Perhaps you had to be there...

For reference, here's the thread (only last November) which I was
probably remembering.  There were similar discussions four years ago,
but there were largely the old "scripting" vs. "non-scripting" debates.


Note the OP (of that thread, not this one) clarifying in a followup
post that when he referred to, in effect, "compiling to binary", he
did *not* mean what you appear to think is the obvious thing:

  "When I say compiled language, I do mean a language like C++ which is
   transformed into machine code by a compiler.

   I was under the impression that Python had no such compiler, and that
   the end user of my programs would be required to install the Python
   Interpreter. Is that true in most cases?"

Clearly "transformed into machine code" equates to your "compiles to
binary", but the OP was also clearly really interested in avoiding
separate installation of an interpreter, not really in "compiled" code.

And that is probably the last I should say on the matter.


More information about the Python-list mailing list