Python and Flaming Thunder

[Lie]

On May 15, 4:08 am, "bruno.desthuilli... at gmail.com"
<bruno.desthuilli... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 mai, 08:08, Lie <Lie.1... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 12:51 pm, Lie <Lie.1... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And your 8 by 8 cross compiler doesn't impress me at all, they're all
> > > based on x86/IA-32 architecture which is quite similar, no PowerPC,
> > > SPARC, ARM, no other CISC or RISC architecture. And your compiler is a
> > > single language compiler instead of three dimensional compiler that
> > > GCC is (cross platform, cross target platform, cross language).
>
> > And to add, I also need to mention that Python doesn't need to be
> > compiled at all,
>
> No language needs compilation - it's an implementation problem, not a
> language problem. Now all the Python's implementations I know do use
> compilation (to byte-code).
> > its py and pyo file is architecture independent.
>
> True, but this is not strictly related to being compiled or not.

It's true, it's implementation problem whether a language is compiled
or not, but what I was emphasizing was that Python's code is
architecture independent at all stages (that is visible to the user
and the programmer), on the other hand, a compiled code is a compiled
code is a compiled code, it cannot be architecture independent without
packing multiple binaries in the same executable (like in Macintosh's
universal binary) or using an emulation (with huge overheads) or at
least using a compatibility layer (which doesn't always work) and all
this is done in the layer that is visible to user and programmer
(programmer having to compile against everything and user having to
download the correct executable) instead of being done in a platform
independent way that interpreted language like Python have.