On 5 feb, 05:19, Santiago Romero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ( Surely if this question has been asked for a zillion of times... ) > ( and sorry for my english! ) > > I'm impressed with python. I'm very happy with the language and I > find Python+Pygame a very powerful and productive way of writing 2D > games. I'm not, at this moment, worried about execution speed of the > small game I'm working on (it runs at full 60 fps even in an old AMD- > K6 450 Laptop computer), but I continue asking me the same question: > > Why not a Python COMPILER? > > It would be very nice to be able to output Linux, MAC or Windows > binaries of compiled (not bytecompiled) code. It would run faster, it > will be smaller in size (I think) and it will be easy to distribute to > people not having python installed. Yes, I know about py2exe, but I'm > not sure if that's the right aproach. > > So, what's wrong with compiling python? > > Maybe is not possible due to nature of the language? Is just a > decision? > > What do you think about this?
There are some projects aimed to speed up Python by a large margin. Right now you can use psyco, which is considered to be feature complete, and whose future relies on the Pypy project. Pypy is a very ambitious project and it aims, amongst many other goals, to provide a fast just-in-time python implementation. They even say that the "secret goal is being faster than c, which is nonsense, isn´t it?" (I still didn´t get the joke though...). And finally, you have ShedSkin, a project developed by one lonely and heroic coder (Mark Dufour). Shedskin aims at being a static python compiler, which can translate a subset of python to stand alone executables. It also can compile extension modules for cpython. It works by translating python to c++ and then to machine code. The python code must be done in a static way (getting rid of dynamic features like, for example, not asigning different types to the same variable). Luis -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
