On 2007-06-04, Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Your opinions are noted, thank you, but I don't agree with
>> you. There are portions of the code that are under review for
>> patents and as such need to be protected.
>
> For the record: This is not true. If you've already applied
> for the patent, you have as much legal protection as you will
> ever get. Also, since patents apply to methods and not to
> literal source, if you're trying to protect something
> patentable you have even less protection against analysis and
> disassembly than you would if you were trying to protect the
> copyright on the code. If you need to make a token effort to
> satisfy whatever legal hurdles are involved, shipping .pyc
> files (which py2exe and all the other packagers I'm aware of
> do) is just as effective as shipping executables compiled with
> C or C++.
>
>> I'm investigating whether Python is the right language to use
>> for a commercial CAD application. While I think Python is a
>> great scripting language, there seems to limitations with
>> regards to packaging and distributing programs.
>
> None that don't also exist in every other language in
> existence. These are fundamental issues of information theory,
> not language constraints.
Especially since the alternative appears to be Java. Just like
Java, Python compiles to byte code that runs on a VM.
If for some reason he's happy shipping Java VM byte-code and
not Python VM byte-code, then he can use Jython to generate
byte-code for the Java VM instead of for the Python VM.
Personally I think it's rather deluded to think that one is any
more secure than the other.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! What UNIVERSE is this,
at please??
visi.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
