On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Christian Gollwitzer <aurio...@gmx.de> wrote: > Am 15.05.17 um 23:58 schrieb Chris Angelico: >> >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Deborah Swanson >> <pyt...@deborahswanson.net> wrote: >>> >>> 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). >> >> You seem to be of the opinion that some day, binary executables will >> be compiled using pure Python code. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not. > > > More likely would be the option to ship a C compiler with Python written in > C. For C++ this is way too big, but a pure C compiler can be as small as > 1MB. tcc has a liberal license, supports many platforms and gives reasonable > (unoptimized) code. AFAIK Mathworks does that, they ship tcc on Windows so > that you can build .mex files without installing additional software, though > they recommend to get a decent compiler for performance reasons >
To do that, Python would itself have to be compiled with tcc, or else all memory de/allocation would have to be funneled through a Python-provided API. And that's going to kill performance, I suspect. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
