[Python.NET] PythonDotNet - IronPyton
btribble at ea.com
Mon Jan 10 19:42:03 CET 2011
There are also logistical and political considerations. Some environments are tied to cpython, and switching to IronPython is impossible (such as the python environment included with Autodesk Maya). Also, many engineers have religious leanings, and would never tie their environment to .NET or other MicroSoft technologies. Adding .NET functionality "on the side" is usually an easier sell.
From: pythondotnet-bounces+btribble=ea.com at python.org [mailto:pythondotnet-bounces+btribble=ea.com at python.org] On Behalf Of Mark Tigges
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:12 AM
To: emmanuel.lambert at intec.ugent.be
Cc: pythondotnet at python.org
Subject: Re: [Python.NET] PythonDotNet - IronPyton
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Emmanuel Lambert
<emmanuel.lambert at intec.ugent.be> wrote:
> Hi Oleksii Bidiuk,
> While access to the native Python libraries is apprently a nice feature
> of "Python for .NET", I don't think it is very useful in real-world .NET
> centric projects (in a corporate environment for example).
> An implementation like IronPython restricts itself to the use of
> native .NET features and thus cannot cause dangerous side-effects that
> inflict memory leak for example. With "Python for .NET", that is not the
> Therefore, in my opinion, IronPython looks like an implementation that
> is potentially useful for real-world projects, while "Python for .NET"
> looks more experimental in its nature...
You're very mistaken. In our "corporate environment" (a large game
studio), we use both. IronPython is used where we want to extend a
.net environment with python scripting capabilities. PythonDotNet is
used when we want to use our .net assemblies from another program
which has cpython embedded. PythonDotNet allows us to extend Maya &
MotionBuilder by leveraging all the .net code we write for our tools.
Your opinion is yours, but trust me, while PythonDotNet is a little
rough around the edges it is hugely beneficial to us and others.
We use a cpython distribution augmented with PythonDotNet as our
standard python for distribution to client machines. The only place
we use IronPython is embedded in our tools. The start up time for
IronPython (about .5 secs) the last time I checked pretty much makes
> On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 09:55 +0100, Oleksii Bidiuk wrote:
>> Hi Emmanuel,
>> The basic differences are highlighted in several discussions like
>> In short IronPython is a complete managed implementation of Python
>> interpreter in .NET (developed parallel to the regular Python or
>> CPython), just like Jython. Python for .NET on the other hand is
>> a .NET wrapper around the CPython interpreter providing access to the
>> CPython from .NET application and back. There are differences in
>> implementation (e.g. no GIL in IronPython) and in the accessibility of
>> the libraries (no access to the C libraries from IronPython out of
>> I am also interested in any hints to the roadmaps of the both
>> products. IronPython seem to be more mature, but it is also way more
>> effort than Python for .NET. So far I have difficulties to choose
>> strategically for either one as both are lagging behind the solid
>> community of CPython. Comments are more than welcome!
>> 2011/1/10 Emmanuel Lambert <emmanuel.lambert at intec.ugent.be>
>> Dear all,
>> I was wondering : what is the difference between PythonDotNet
>> IronPython? It looks like IronPython is rapidly becoming a
>> implementation for the .NET platform, with also a plugin for
>> Studio becoming available : http://ironpython.net/
>> The distinction between the two implementations, future
>> roadmaps, etc,
>> is not clear to me. Any comments are welcome...
>> Python.NET mailing list - PythonDotNet at python.org
> Python.NET mailing list - PythonDotNet at python.org
Python.NET mailing list - PythonDotNet at python.org
More information about the PythonDotNet