On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Douglas A. Tutty <dtu...@vianet.ca> wrote:
> Someone has a python compiler (*.py to an executable)? Yes, I know that > python *.py modules get "compiled" into *.pyc byte-code but that still > has to go through the python interpreter. Also, what happens in 10 > years when I want to make a slight change to a program? Yeah, both perl [1] and python [2] now have compilers (to executable, not to bytecode) out there. You (obviously) lose the platform-independence with this. It seems like most of them are a little clunky -- they wind up importing part of the relevant interpreter, so I don't know if the resulting executable would run any faster. In 10 years, if you want to change the program, you need to change the source and recompile, just like with C. The issue is just that the language is still changing, so there's no guarantee that any compiler for new hardware will recognize your old language conventions. That'll throw up the same roadblocks whether you compile a standalone executable or stick with the interpreted plaintext script file. [1] http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=186402 [2] http://effbot.org/pyfaq/how-can-i-create-a-stand-alone-binary-from-a-python-script.htm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org