Hi Skip, On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:49:30AM -0600, Skip Montanaro wrote: > > >> The other thing we can do is finish the portable backend for psyco > >> and make it a standard module. Then Python won't be slow, it will be > >> compiled, and py2exe will be able to make a single-file executable. > > Armin> You probably mean that Psyco can dynamically compile Python > Armin> bytecodes even if they have been hidden into an .exe file by > Armin> py2exe. > > I didn't read it that way. My impression was that py2exe be modified to > include and enable psyco if it's available when building an .exe. You > would, in theory, get a single file distribution as well as dynamic > compilation.
Yes, I agree with this. What I meant is that when I first read the original paragraph (the 1st one quoted above), I thought it meant that in the future py2exe and Psyco could be combined in such a way that we'd essentially have a compiler from Python producing a "classical" compiled binary. A lot of people could read it that way. The question is if we should advertise a Psyco+py2exe combination using a similar wording, such that it superficially sounds like we are doing a "classical" compilation from .py to .exe, whereas it actually means that we are hiding Psyco with the bytecodes in a .exe. After all, from a user's (or journalist's) point of view the result is similar, performancewise. Whether Psyco is reliable enough for this is yet another issue... I'd classify Psyco as "mostly reliable" only... A bientot, Armin. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
