Paul Rubin schrieb: > Laurent Pointal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> IMHO trying to have a binary compatibility with older compiled modules >> by maintaining an ad-hoc layer to switch between 2.4/2.5 engines make >> Python code more complex. And more complex code have generally more >> bugs. This is the reason for my KISS hope about Python. > > I haven't heard of other languages that seriously try to do that, > though maybe some do.
Languages typically achieve this by specifying an ABI (in addition to the API), and then sticking to that. The most prominent example is the language C, where you normally can upgrade the C library on most current systems without having to recompile all applications. Today, there is machinery to still allow evolution of the C library. E.g. on Linux, there really is a layer in the C library to provide binary compatibility with earlier versions. Another example is Java and JNI, which is an interface that just won't change (AFAIK). Similar to Python, Tcl has a layer of function pointers that is designed to be version-indepdendent - whether this actually works, I don't know. There are many more examples. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
