Now this might sound a bit stupid but I've only been programming in python for about 6 months and before that about the same on VB. Anyway here goes, as python is built in C & C++ surely every piece of python code has a corresponding piece of C/C++ albeit more complex. So would it be possible to somehow make a program to convert the Python to C & C++ which can then be compiled with a C/C++ compiler.
Adam On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:09:27 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Python-Dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places (Carlos Ribeiro) > 2. Re: The other Py2.4 issue (Paul Moore) > 3. Re: Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places (Carlos Ribeiro) > 4. Re: Supporting Third Party Modules (was The other Py2.4 > issue) (Bob Ippolito) > 5. Re: The other Py2.4 issue (Carlos Ribeiro) > 6. Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places (Fredrik Lundh) > 7. Re: The other Py2.4 issue (Martin v. L?wis) > 8. Re: Supporting Third Party Modules (was The other Py2.4 > issue) (Martin v. L?wis) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Carlos Ribeiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Erik Heneryd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:14:09 -0200 > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places > On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:10:58 +0100, Erik Heneryd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > >>>fwiw, IDG's Computer Sweden, "sweden's leading IT-newspaper" has a > > >>>surprisingly big Python article in their most recent issue: > > >>> > > >>> PYTHON FEELS WELL > > >>> Better performance biggest news in 2.4 > > >>> > > > > >>>and briefly interviews swedish zope-developer Johan Carlsson and Python- > > >>>Ware co-founder Håkan Karlsson. > > >> > > > > ... > > > > > > > > so I don't think you can blame Johan or Håkan... the writer simply read > > > the > > > python.org material, and picked a couple of things that he found > > > interesting > > > (decorators and generator expressions may be a big thing for an > > > experienced > > > pythoneer, but they are probably a bit too obscure for a general > > > audience...) > > > > I'm a bit puzzled by the last paragraph, where Python is grouped > > together with PHP and Perl - names starting with p, being popular on > > Linux and not having big, commercial backers. The article then > > concludes "Since Python is copyrighted, it's not truly open. However, > > it can be freely used and redistributed, even commercially." > > > > Huh? Where did THAT come from? You might argue the merits of Python > > being associated with Perl/PHP, but it's a fact that it is. But when it > > is, it's seen as less free? > > The author was probably referring to the old (and as AFAIK already > solved) CRNI copyright issue that ocurred into the 1.x to 2.x series > transition. It's amazing how old memes from Python keep being > remembered and repeated, even years after the fact. It also > illustrates something very important - the community is not doing a > good job at spreading the news; perhaps we talk too much between > ourselves, and too little with the outside market. IMHO the website is > a great part of this, its message being more important to "sell" > Python than the standard library or native .exes. > > About the website, a note from my own experience: when I search for > documentation on Python, I'm usually directed to some of the mirror of > the main python.org site. To find it inside the main site, I have to > use "site:python.org", or even "site:docs.python.org". Usually Google > does a good job at ranking pages, and if it doesn't rank the main > Python website very highly, it's because they're not being referred > to. A campaign to ask people to put links back to the canonical > documentation at the Python website would be nice. > > -- > Carlos Ribeiro > Consultoria em Projetos > blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com > blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com > mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Christian Tismer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:26:49 +0000 > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] The other Py2.4 issue > On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:57:55 +0100, Christian Tismer > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Armin Rigo wrote: > > > > Hum, this is getting into a Linux-vs-Windows argument. I don't want to > > > invest > > > time and money on Windows tools just to compile my extension module for > > > Windows users... > > First of all, I'm assuming this is a timing issue. If I understood > your initial posting, your concern was that people wanted Windows > build of your extension *now*, and it was going to take you time to > make it available. > > That's a different issue from you not having the facilities to build > the Windows installers at all, where you rely on 3rd parties making > builds available. > > As Martin points out, ultimately the provision of Windows binaries is > an issue for the extension project - is the demand high enough to > justify the effort, can you find tools and/or a helper, etc etc. > > But the former issue (how quickly you can provide binaries, assuming > that you will do so ultimately) is more relevant for python-dev. > Specifically, because lack of binary extensions can be a barrier to > take-up of the new version. Certainly, in the past, you could pretty > much guarantee that there would be very few Windows users testing beta > releases, because pywin32 binaries weren't available. With 2.4, I have > at least one system I'd upgrade *now* but for the lack of a critical > extension in binary form (I haven't yet had the time to try to adapt > the build process to mingw for myself). > > > Maybe we can set this up as a service? > > That sounds like a good idea. What I'd suggest is needed is a website > where the following can take place: > > 1. People have a way of posting rquests for particular modules. > 2. Installers can be uploaded to satisfy those requests. > 3. There is somewhere to put step-by-step "build it yourself" > instructions, using free components, so that people *without* access > to VS.NET can make progress themselves. Obviously, if a particular > extension can't be built with free compilers, then binaries or access > to VS.NET are the only options. > > The installers should be clearly noted as having no warranty or > support implied, to encourage people to offer binaries they have built > without feeling that they are taking on a support burden. Conversely, > as soon as "official" binaries are available from the extension > project, the binaries available here should be removed (and replaced > with a link to the official site) to reinforce the "unofficial" nature > of the binaries provided here. > > The biggest potential issue with such a site is clearly validation. > I've no idea how to make something like this work without it being a > major virus risk. Which may, sadly, be enough to kill the idea :-( > > Paul. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Carlos Ribeiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:32:03 -0200 > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places > Hello all, > > Just to complement my previous remarks, I would like to point out how > do a competing language defines itself in its own website. The > perl.org website has a simple faq that is a good piece of marketing. > What follows are direct quotes, just to point out how ot handle the > market perception about their quality & speed. > > -- "Perl takes the best features from other languages, such as C, awk, > sed, sh, and BASIC, among others." > > (A claim can't possibly be any more generic than this. Strangely > enough, it mentions only older languages -- not Java, C++, or even > Python (!). This is possibly a sign of an old quote, but anyway: it > has a good marketing effect, specially for non-techies.) > > -- "Perl can be embedded into web servers to speed up processing by as > much as 2000%." > > (BTW, this quote is embarrassing misleading -- it probably means that > Perl is 20x slower when started on a request basis by the web server, > and that embedding it will accelerate response by a huge factor. I'm > sure non-techies will read it as "Perl is able to accelerate my server > 20x!") > > Of course, the point here is not Perl-bashing. The point here is that > we should be able to "sell" Python better than we do now, even without > the need to resort to such poor measures. I'm sure the Python > community does have good & creative people that can write a good > "selling" FAQ for Python, emphasizing the main points of the language. > > For those who believe that a non-profit project should not do any > marketing, a reminder. If the perception about Python is one of a slow > language, it's much more difficult to find places where you can use > Python. In the long run, many of us may be forced to work with other > languages & tools, just because that's where the money is. I > personally take it a matter of personal interest, because I know how > hard it is to "sell" Python to companies here in Brazil. > > -- > Carlos Ribeiro > Consultoria em Projetos > blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com > blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com > mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:46:18 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Supporting Third Party Modules (was The other Py2.4 > issue) > > On Dec 12, 2004, at 11:02 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > > > Bob Ippolito wrote: > >>> I believe this is not implementable: How can the DLL know which > >>> Python > >>> DLL to use? > >> Well for py2app on Mac OS X, I wrote an executable stub that chooses > >> a Python runtime from an XML file, looks up and binds a few symbols > >> from it dynamically, and then starts doing stuff. > > > > While that would work, I think this is inappropriate for this specific > > issue: we want to write extension modules which are independent of > > the Python version, and might even be used with multiple Python > > installations on the same system. In that case, adding configuration > > files won't work, as each usage of the extension might require a > > different Python DLL. > > Yes, of course, I was talking about the executable, not extensions. On > Mac OS X 10.3+, the linker flag -undefined dynamic_lookup allows > extensions to link to no Python whatsoever. The extensions will just > find the symbols it needs from some other image already loaded into the > process at runtime. If it weren't for the "forced" ABI > incompatibility, we'd already have extensions that work > cross-Python-major-version (assuming they used a safe subset of > functions and structures). > > -bob > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Carlos Ribeiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:53:10 -0200 > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] The other Py2.4 issue > On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:40:22 +0100, Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If none of your users volunteers to do the build for you, I would stop > > worrying about the Windows users. > > Sorry, Martin. I understand your point, but I think you are not being > realistic. I for myself took the decision to use only free tools for > my own development, but I still have to suport my Windows customers. I > can't force them to change to Linux. I don't own a copy of MSVC. Also, > one of the reasons to choose a third part module is to save time. The > moment I am required to recompile everything myself I'm losing this > convenience. This of course impacts my ability to focus on my own > work, and so the story goes. > > I'm not saying that module authors should work for free just to save > me some time & hassle. It's fair if an author decides to release a > Linux-only module. But again -- this is not realistic. The world has a > lot of Windows users, and I depend on them for my own income. If I > can't find a good set of Python tools for my projects, what should I > do? Picking another language is not a choice, mind you :-) > > All in all, I sincerely hope that this discussion end up in a high > note. I'm not qualified to talk about the particulars of C compilers & > development environments, but as a Python user, I have hope that a > good solution will be found to make the process of building Python > extensions for Windows more convenient. The dream scenario is not to > require recompiling, at least inside the same major release (2.4 to > 2.5, for example). That would be really great. > > -- > Carlos Ribeiro > Consultoria em Projetos > blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com > blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com > mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:53:27 +0100 > Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: Re: 2.4 news reaches interesting places > > . Multiple assignment is slower than individual assignment. For > > example "x,y=a,b" is slower than "x=a; y=b". However, multiple > > assignment is faster for variable swaps. For example, "x,y=y,x" is > > faster than "t=x; x=y; y=t". > > marginally faster in 2.4, a lot slower in earlier versions. maybe you > should mark sections that rely on 2.4-specific optimizations, so that > people who use earlier versions don't end up slowing their programs > down... > > </F> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Carlos Ribeiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:06:44 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] The other Py2.4 issue > Carlos Ribeiro wrote: > >>If none of your users volunteers to do the build for you, I would stop > >>worrying about the Windows users. > > > > > > Sorry, Martin. I understand your point, but I think you are not being > > realistic. I for myself took the decision to use only free tools for > > my own development, but I still have to suport my Windows customers. I > > can't force them to change to Linux. I don't own a copy of MSVC. Also, > > one of the reasons to choose a third part module is to save time. The > > moment I am required to recompile everything myself I'm losing this > > convenience. This of course impacts my ability to focus on my own > > work, and so the story goes. > > I did not suggest that *all* your Windows users should recompile > your module - just a single one would be sufficient. > > > I'm not saying that module authors should work for free just to save > > me some time & hassle. It's fair if an author decides to release a > > Linux-only module. But again -- this is not realistic. The world has a > > lot of Windows users, and I depend on them for my own income. If I > > can't find a good set of Python tools for my projects, what should I > > do? Picking another language is not a choice, mind you :-) > > As I said: Find a volunteer that has the necessary build infrastructure, > and have that volunteer build the extension for you. > > > The dream scenario is not to > > require recompiling, at least inside the same major release (2.4 to > > 2.5, for example). That would be really great. > > That is guaranteed. Extensions built for 2.4 will certainly continue > to work in 2.4.1, and later 2.4.x. They will stop working with 2.5 > (as they are linked with python24.dll). > > Regards, > Martin > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:09:05 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Supporting Third Party Modules (was The other Py2.4 > issue) > Bob Ippolito wrote: > > Yes, of course, I was talking about the executable, not extensions. On > > Mac OS X 10.3+, the linker flag -undefined dynamic_lookup allows > > extensions to link to no Python whatsoever. > > It's the same on SysV ELF shared libraries, and in most other unices. > > > The extensions will just > > find the symbols it needs from some other image already loaded into the > > process at runtime. If it weren't for the "forced" ABI incompatibility, > > we'd already have extensions that work cross-Python-major-version > > (assuming they used a safe subset of functions and structures). > > Are you talking about a forced ABI incompatibility, beyond the Windows > issue of linking with a specific pythonxy.dll? > > On Unix, you certainly can have extensions across Python major versions. > > Regards, > Martin > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > > > _______________________________________________ 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
