In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Hey Donn, here is a compiled program for the PowerPC,
> or an ARM processor, or one of IBM's Big Iron
> mainframes. Or even a Commodore 64. What do you think
> the chances are that you can execute it on your
> x86-compatible PC? It's compiled, it should just
> work!!! Right?
>
> No of course not. If your CPU can't interpret the
> machine code correctly, the fact that the code is
> compiled makes NO difference at all.
>
> In other words, I have three choices:
>
> - cross my fingers and hope that you have the required
> interpreter (CPU);
>
> - slip in an interpreter install (perhaps an emulator)
> and hope you won't notice;
>
> - or come clean and tell you that my program needs an
> interpreter ("Hey Donn, do you have a Mac you can run
> this on?") and you should check to see that you have it.
Sure, all this is true, except for the term "interpreter."
You would surely not use the word that way, unless you
just didn't want to communicate.
Your paragraph above that starts with "No of course not",
even omits a point that everyone understands, you can in
fact expect a .py file will work independent of machine
architecture - like any interpreted language. We all know
what native code compilation buys you and what it doesn't.
Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
