Chris Angelico wrote, on Monday, May 15, 2017 11:22 AM > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Deborah Swanson > <pyt...@deborahswanson.net> wrote: > > It continues to amaze me that Anaconda and Python.org, probably the > > two biggest distributors of official Python builds, are now relying on > > Visual C++. Why can't Python developers write the entire setup and > > installation code in Python? Surely Python has the required > > functionality, and it seems more than a little demeaning for Python to > > be using Visual C++ as a crutch. > > Are you suggesting that a C compiler should be written in > Python? Because you're dealing with an extension library. > It's not written in pure Python. That's why it needs a C > compiler. While it is certainly possible to write a C > compiler in Python, it is unlikely to outperform the existing > popular compilers (gcc, clang, msvc, etc), which have had > many years of expertise poured into them.
I don't know much about extensions yet, but I think I can see what you're saying. It probably is a shortcut for volunteer developers to use existing C/C++ code where they can, rather than writing all of it from scratch in Python. But I'm a little more mystified that official Python builds are leaning on Visual C++ (and that's what the crutch comment was primarily aimed at). Perhaps they're just as resource needy as the extension developers are and new requirements have come up as Python 3 progresses that they don't already have Python build and installation tools written and tested for. I'd be willing to step into that void when my Python skills are equal to the task (and my health permitting, of course). But that would be years from now, and maybe someone else will step up before then. I'm really thinking that build has languished far behind the rest of the language's development for way too long. > None of this applies if you are actually depending on a pure > Python module, which *can* be installed without a C compiler. > Visual C++ is not a crutch but a critical part of the build process. > > ChrisA I'll still think of it as a crutch for official Python builds, but I can see your point for extension developers. Maybe I have more pride in the Python language than is right and proper, but I do think it would be worth the relatively small investment to make and start growing Python's own build and installation tools asap. Python will be the reigning Queen of coding languages someday. Certainly seems like she should have all her own working parts and be beholden to no one. ;) Microsoft saw the need for build and installation teams very early on, and now everyone depends on what they made. And yes, Windows and all Microsoft software from thence forward was primarily made with C/C++, because MSDOS was appallingly incapable of meeting the challenge and that's all they had before Windows. Python has a lot more than MSDOS ever dreamed of, and that's what seems demeaning to me that Python is piggybacking on a lesser language, because their need to do so is so infinitesimally less than Microsoft's need was to move on from MSDOS. And I think the day is coming that Microsoft will be too much of a dinosaur (like IBM has become) to continue meeting the needs of evolving languages. Better to get going on our own tools, the sooner the better, in my opinion. Deborah -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
