On 29 May 2015 9:17 am, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 May 2015 08:48:11 +1000
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > After all, the real difference between the alphas and the final releases
> > isn't about anything *we* do, it's about the testing *other people* do
that
> > picks up gaps in our test
On behalf of the Python 3.5 release team:
Due to a particularly bad bug ( http://bugs.python.org/issue24285 ),
we're going to issue a new beta of Python 3.5 this weekend. This will
not change the rest of the schedule; it'll just bump the remaining beta
numbers up by 1. Thus the schedule is
Hi all,
Apologies in advance; I'm not a regular, and this may have been
handled already (but I couldn't find it when searching).
I've been using the new async/await functionality (congrats again to
Yury on getting that through!), and I'd like to get a stack trace
between the place at which blocki
Getting lost as to what thread this belongs in...
But another tack to take toward a single executable is Cython's embedding
option:
https://github.com/cython/cython/wiki/EmbeddingCython
This is a quick and dirty way to create a C executable that will then run
the cythonized code, all linked to t
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Go seems to be popular where I work. It is replacing Python in a number of
> places, although Python (and especially Python 3) is still a very important
> part of our language toolbox.
>
> There are several reasons why Go is gaining populari
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:10 PM Larry Hastings wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 05:58 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of wasting our time with
> Python 2? We have limited resources in term of developers to maintain
> Python.
>
>
> Uh, guys, you might as well call
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> That said, making a demo of self-contained webapp server in 350-400K is
> definitely on my TODO list (package support for frozen modules is the
> only blocker for that).
It may be worth taking this over to import-...@python.org for more di
YESSS!!!
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 05:58 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of wasting our time with
> Python 2? We have limited resources in term of developers to maintain
> Python.
>
>
> Uh, guys, you might a
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> 2015-05-28 18:07 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
> > This patch could save companies like Dropbox a lot of money. We run a
> ton of
> > Python code in large datacenters, and while we are slow in moving to
> Python
> > 3, we're good at updating
On 05/28/2015 05:58 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of wasting our time with
Python 2? We have limited resources in term of developers to maintain
Python.
Uh, guys, you might as well call off the debate. Benjamin already
checked it in.
https://hg.py
2015-05-28 18:07 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
> This patch could save companies like Dropbox a lot of money. We run a ton of
> Python code in large datacenters, and while we are slow in moving to Python
> 3, we're good at updating to the latest 2.7.
I'm not sure that backporting optimizations woul
The buildbots currently live in a state of denial about the 3.5 branch.
Could someone whisper tenderly in their collective shell-like ears so
that they start building 3.5, in addition to 3.4 and trunk?
Thank you,
//arry/
___
Python-Dev mailing l
On May 28, 2015 at 7:40:26 PM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > One thing I've seen more than once is that new development happens
> in Python
> > until the problem is understood, then the code is ported to Go.
> Python's
> > short path from idea to working code, along with it
On 29 May 2015 2:16 am, "Barry Warsaw" wrote:
>
> Go seems to be popular where I work. It is replacing Python in a number
of
> places, although Python (and especially Python 3) is still a very
important
> part of our language toolbox.
>
> There are several reasons why Go is gaining popularity. S
Hello,
On Fri, 29 May 2015 08:38:44 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
[]
> In that vein, it might be interesting to see what could be done with
> MicroPython in terms of providing a lightweight portable Python
> runtime without CPython's extensive integration with the underlying
> OS.
Thanks for menti
On Thu, 28 May 2015 08:48:11 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> I just remembered one of the biggest causes of pain: Windows binaries for
> projects that aren't using the stable ABI. It used to regularly take 6+
> months for the Windows ecosystem to catch up after each 2.x release.
You're right, comp
On May 28, 2015, at 11:48 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>And the very same place where you are working is investing in getting shared
>libraries working for Go. Single binaries may be popular for distributing end
>user applications, but definitely not for distributing a core OS or a SDK.
Yep, I ment
On 29 May 2015 00:52, "Paul Moore" wrote:
>
> +1. The new embeddable Python distribution for Windows is a great step
> forward for this. It's not single-file, but it's easy to produce a
> single-directory self-contained application with it. I don't know if
> there's anything equivalent for Linux/O
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 28 May 2015 23:48:59 +0200
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> []
>
>> And the very same place where you are working is investing in getting
>> shared libraries working for Go. Single binaries may be popular for
>> distributing
On 29 May 2015 01:04, "Steve Dower" wrote:
>
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > On 28 May 2015 at 15:28, Steve Dower wrote:
> >> I don't have the issue number handy, but it should be near the top of
> >> the recently modified list.
> >
> > I recall seeing that issue. I'm fine with that - getting the two in
Hello,
On Thu, 28 May 2015 23:48:59 +0200
Matthias Klose wrote:
[]
> And the very same place where you are working is investing in getting
> shared libraries working for Go. Single binaries may be popular for
> distributing end user applications, but definitely not for
> distributing a core OS
On May 28, 2015 at 5:50:32 PM, Matthias Klose (d...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 06:13 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > Go seems to be popular where I work. It is replacing Python in a number of
> > places, although Python (and especially Python 3) is still a very important
> > part of our langu
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
> py2exe tends to invoke DLL hell if you have various versions of VS or
> Office or both installed. Because Windows.
>
uh, yes -- Windows applications invoke dll hell..nothign to be done
about that!
-Chris
>
> On May 28, 2015 11:23:57
On 05/28/2015 06:13 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Go seems to be popular where I work. It is replacing Python in a number of
> places, although Python (and especially Python 3) is still a very important
> part of our language toolbox.
>
> There are several reasons why Go is gaining popularity. Singl
On 5/28/2015 12:26 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 19:22, Chris Angelico wrote:
Unfortunately (and believe me, I've been down this road many times) on
Windows *only* the exe format is a "first-class" executable.
Executable scripts and shebangs are very useful, but there are always
corne
On 29 May 2015 05:25, "Chris Barker" wrote:
>
> OK, I'm really confused here:
>
> 1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++, and
whatever else? forever. (and indeed, it was a big sticking point for me
On 28/05/15 21:37, Chris Barker wrote:
I think it's great for it to be used by end users as a system library /
utility. i.e. like you would a the system libc -- so if you can write a
little python script that only uses the stdlib -- you can simply deliver
that script.
No it is not, because som
On 5/28/15 3:52 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
On 28.05.15 22:40, benjamin.peterson wrote:
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ac891c518d4e
changeset: 96342:ac891c518d4e
branch: 3.5
parent: 96339:6f05f83c7010
user:Benjamin Peterson
date:Thu May 28 14:40:08 2015 -0500
summ
On 28 May 2015 at 20:47, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I think it's to have a single tool to do it for any platform, not to have
> the technical nuts and bolts be the same necessarily. I think it's also to
> figure out if there is anything the interpreter and/or stdlib can do to
> facilitate this.
Precis
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Sturla Molden
wrote:
> Many Unix tools need Python, so Mac OS X (like Linux distros and FreeBSD)
> will always need a system Python. Yes, it would be great if could be called
> spython or something else than python. But the main problem is that it is
> used by en
On Thu, May 28, 2015, at 15:52, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> On 28.05.15 22:40, benjamin.peterson wrote:
> > https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ac891c518d4e
> > changeset: 96342:ac891c518d4e
> > branch: 3.5
> > parent: 96339:6f05f83c7010
> > user:Benjamin Peterson
> > date:
On 28.05.15 22:40, benjamin.peterson wrote:
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ac891c518d4e
changeset: 96342:ac891c518d4e
branch: 3.5
parent: 96339:6f05f83c7010
user:Benjamin Peterson
date:Thu May 28 14:40:08 2015 -0500
summary:
remove STORE_MAP, since it's unused
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:25 PM Chris Barker wrote:
> OK, I'm really confused here:
>
> 1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
> writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++, and
> whatever else? forever. (and indeed, it was a big sticking p
Sorry for missing Julian's question. The GCC version used for the benchmarks is
4.8.2
Will look into the discussion at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39284 and will investigate it.
> Julian Taylor jtaylor.debian at googlemail.com
> Thu May 28 13:30:59 CEST 2015
> won't this need p
On 28 May 2015 at 19:22, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Unfortunately (and believe me, I've been down this road many times) on
>> Windows *only* the exe format is a "first-class" executable.
>> Executable scripts and shebangs are very useful, but there are always
>> corner cases where they don't work *q
Donald Stufft wrote:
> Honestly, I’m on an OS that *does* ship Python (OS X) and part of me hopes
> that they stop shipping it. It’s very rare that someone ships Python as
> part of their OS without modifying it in some way, and those modifications
> almost always cause pain to some set of users
OK, I'm really confused here:
1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++, and
whatever else? forever. (and indeed, it was a big sticking point for me
when I introduced python in my organization)
2) Wh
On 5/28/2015 12:44 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
long-term competitiveness.
I completely agree. I talk to a lot of people about packaging of things, and
while
I think there are some serious problems with huge parts of Go’s pack
On May 28, 2015 at 2:33:25 PM, Carl Meyer (c...@oddbird.net) wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 11:52 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> [snip]
> > Nevertheless, I would like to understand how Unix can manage to have a
> > Python 3.4.3 binary at 4kb. Does that *really* have no external
> > dependencies (other than the
On May 28, 2015 at 2:11:02 PM, Terry Reedy (tjre...@udel.edu) wrote:
> On 5/28/2015 10:55 AM, Steve Dower wrote:
>
> > And it would look like a 20MB+ file just for a simple 1KB Python
> > script...
> >
> > For Windows at least, I'd prefer to have some app-style installer
> > generation (e.g. ht
On 05/28/2015 11:52 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
[snip]
> Nevertheless, I would like to understand how Unix can manage to have a
> Python 3.4.3 binary at 4kb. Does that *really* have no external
> dependencies (other than the C library)? Are we really comparing like
> with like here?
I don't know what Do
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 18:15, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Unix-like systems have this courtesy of the shebang, so as long as
>> there's some sort of Python installed, people don't need to know or
>> care that /usr/local/bin/mailmail is implemented in P
You might want to have a look at eGenix PyRun, which gives you
an almost complete Python runtime in 4-13MB (depending on what
startup performance needs you have):
http://www.egenix.com/products/python/PyRun/
On 28.05.2015 17:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wr
On 5/28/2015 10:55 AM, Steve Dower wrote:
And it would look like a 20MB+ file just for a simple 1KB Python
script...
For Windows at least, I'd prefer to have some app-style installer
generation (e.g. http://pynsist.readthedocs.org/en/latest/) which,
combined with the embeddable Python distro (n
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 16:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> >
> >>You don’t need a "fully functioning Python" for a single file binary, you
> >>only need enough to actually run your application. For e
Zach has a patch to automate putting the right exports in python3.dll, which
I'm strongly in favor of, but it was rejected because people may have added
APIs that aren't meant to be stable.
Right now, you can #include a number of prototypes that aren't actually
available because there are two p
On 28 May 2015 at 18:04, Brian Curtin wrote:
> Donald mentioned one earlier: command line utilities. I want a single
> CLI I can deploy to my customers that doesn't make them have to
> install Python or even know it's Python at all.
Yep, that's the killer for me as well.
I know it's unrealistic
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On May 28, 2015 at 12:54:34 PM, Chris Angelico (ros...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Is this a Windows-specific issue, or is it also intended for Linux and
>> Mac OS, where there'll already be a system Python (so a
>> single-file-executable would be u
py2exe tends to invoke DLL hell if you have various versions of VS or Office or
both installed. Because Windows.
On May 28, 2015 11:23:57 AM CDT, Chris Barker wrote:
>I'm confused:
>
>Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
>
>And py2app on the Mac creates an application bu
I agree that size is an issue, but is it really that bad? Just compare it to
the recent "web surge" where everyone is writing desktop apps in HTML5+CSS+JS
and bundling a huge WebKit engine in their apps binary.
Python on Windows is seriously in a bad state. IMO, what needs to be
prioritized is
On May 28, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>Pex would be improved by having native support for importing .so’s from within
>a zipfile via zipimport. It would also be improved by having good, built in
>support for extraneous resources in the stdlib too.
Completely agree on both points. Ha
On Thu, May 28, 2015, 12:14 Barry Warsaw wrote:
Go seems to be popular where I work. It is replacing Python in a number of
places, although Python (and especially Python 3) is still a very important
part of our language toolbox.
There are several reasons why Go is gaining popularity. Single-f
On May 28, 2015 at 12:54:34 PM, Chris Angelico (ros...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> > oops, sorry -- I see this was addressed in another thread. Though I guess I
> > still don't see why "single file" is critical, over "single thing to
> > install" --
On May 28, 2015, at 09:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
>>long-term competitiveness.
>
>Really? It seems to me that desktop development is dying. What are the
>critical use-cases for a single file executable?
>
Donald Stufft wrote:
> On May 28, 2015 at 11:30:37 AM, Steve Dower (steve.do...@microsoft.com) wrote:
>> Donald Stufft wrote:
>> > Well Python 3.4.3 binary is 4kb for me, so you'd have that + your
>> > 1KB Python script + whatever
>> other pieces you need.
>>
>> For contrast, here are the things yo
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> Donald mentioned one earlier: command line utilities. I want a single
> CLI I can deploy to my customers that doesn't make them have to
> install Python or even know it's Python at all. My users write code in
> all types of languages on all OS
On 28 May 2015 at 17:47, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Single-file binaries are indeed important. (Though in most cases they don't
> have to be totally stand-alone -- they can depend on a system python and its
> stdlib. At least in typical datacenter setups.) Have people looked at PEX (a
> format deve
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:08 AM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Wow. Such thread. :-)
>
> This patch could save companies like Dropbox a lot of money. We run a ton
> of Python code in large datacenters, and while we are slow in moving to
> Python 3, we're good at updating to the latest 2.7.
>
Dropbox
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> I'm confused:
>
> Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
>
> And py2app on the Mac creates an application bundle, but that is
> more-or-less the equivalent on OS-X (you may not even be able to have a
> single file execut
Donald Stufft wrote:
> Well Python 3.4.3 binary is 4kb for me, so you'd have that + your 1KB Python
> script + whatever other pieces you need.
For contrast, here are the things you need on Windows to be able to get to an
interactive prompt (I don't know how other platforms get this down to 4KB..
On 28 May 2015 at 17:13, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 28, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>>I think docker is a pretty crummy answer to Go’s static binaries. What I would
>>love is for Python to get:
>>
>>* The ability to import .so modules via zipzimport (ideally without a
>>temporary
On May 28, 2015 at 12:24:42 PM, Chris Barker (chris.bar...@noaa.gov) wrote:
> I'm confused:
>
> Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
>
> And py2app on the Mac creates an application bundle, but that is
> more-or-less the equivalent on OS-X (you may not even be able to
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> oops, sorry -- I see this was addressed in another thread. Though I guess I
> still don't see why "single file" is critical, over "single thing to
> install" -- like a OS-X app bundle that can just be dragged into the
> Applications folder.
T
I'm confused:
Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
And py2app on the Mac creates an application bundle, but that is
more-or-less the equivalent on OS-X (you may not even be able to have a
single file executable that can access the Window Manager, for instance)
Depending o
Single-file binaries are indeed important. (Though in most cases they don't
have to be totally stand-alone -- they can depend on a system python and
its stdlib. At least in typical datacenter setups.) Have people looked at
PEX (a format developed by Twitter) or Pants (which seems to be an
open-sour
On May 28, 2015 at 12:01:22 PM, Barry Warsaw (ba...@python.org) wrote:
> On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> >You don’t need a "fully functioning Python" for a single file binary, you
> >only need enough to actually run your application. For example, if you're
> >making an ap
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker
> wrote:
>
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> >> I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
>> >> long-term
>> competitiveness.
>>
>> Really? It seems to me that desktop develo
On 28 May 2015 at 17:28, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>>
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> >> I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
>> >> long-term competitiveness.
>>
>> Really? It seems to me that desktop development is dying
On 28 May 2015 at 16:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>>You don’t need a "fully functioning Python" for a single file binary, you
>>only need enough to actually run your application. For example, if you're
>>making an application that can download file
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >> I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
> >> long-term
> competitiveness.
>
> Really? It seems to me that desktop development is dying. What are the
> critical use-cases for a single fil
Donald Stufft wrote:
> I think docker is a pretty crummy answer to Go’s static binaries. What I would
> love is for Python to get:
>
> * The ability to import .so modules via zipzimport (ideally without a
> temporary
> directory, but that might require newer APIs from libc and such).
> * The abil
Go seems to be popular where I work. It is replacing Python in a number of
places, although Python (and especially Python 3) is still a very important
part of our language toolbox.
There are several reasons why Go is gaining popularity. Single-file
executables is definitely a reason; it makes de
Wow. Such thread. :-)
This patch could save companies like Dropbox a lot of money. We run a ton
of Python code in large datacenters, and while we are slow in moving to
Python 3, we're good at updating to the latest 2.7.
The patch is forward and backward compatible.I'm strongly in favor.
--
--Gu
On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>You don’t need a "fully functioning Python" for a single file binary, you
>only need enough to actually run your application. For example, if you're
>making an application that can download files over HTTP, you don't need to
>include parts of the
On May 28, 2015 at 11:30:37 AM, Steve Dower (steve.do...@microsoft.com) wrote:
> Donald Stufft wrote:
> > Well Python 3.4.3 binary is 4kb for me, so you'd have that + your 1KB
> > Python script + whatever
> other pieces you need.
>
> For contrast, here are the things you need on Windows to b
On 28/05/2015 15:47, Skip Montanaro wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
But you could argue that "Special cases aren't special enough to break the
rules" and that's what we are proposing here by claiming Python 2.7 is a
special case and thus we should accept a patch that
On May 28, 2015 at 10:55:08 AM, Steve Dower (steve.do...@microsoft.com) wrote:
> Donald Stufft wrote:
> > I think docker is a pretty crummy answer to Go’s static binaries. What I
> > would
> > love is for Python to get:
> >
> > * The ability to import .so modules via zipzimport (ideally without
Paul Moore wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 15:28, Steve Dower wrote:
>> I don't have the issue number handy, but it should be near the top of
>> the recently modified list.
>
> I recall seeing that issue. I'm fine with that - getting the two in sync is
> obviously worth doing (and clearly in hand). I'
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:47 AM Skip Montanaro
wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > But you could argue that "Special cases aren't special enough to break
> the
> > rules" and that's what we are proposing here by claiming Python 2.7 is a
> > special case and thus we
On 28 May 2015 at 15:28, Steve Dower wrote:
> I don't have the issue number handy, but it should be near the top of the
> recently modified list.
I recall seeing that issue. I'm fine with that - getting the two in
sync is obviously worth doing (and clearly in hand). I'm personally
not sure whethe
On 28 May 2015 at 15:37, Donald Stufft wrote:
> I think docker is a pretty crummy answer to Go’s static binaries. What I would
> love is for Python to get:
>
> * The ability to import .so modules via zipzimport (ideally without a
> temporary
> directory, but that might require newer APIs from l
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> But you could argue that "Special cases aren't special enough to break the
> rules" and that's what we are proposing here by claiming Python 2.7 is a
> special case and thus we should accept a patch that is not a one-liner
> change to gain som
On May 28, 2015 at 10:10:03 AM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 21:55, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> >> I'm -1 on the idea because:
> >>
> >> * Performance improvements are not bug fixes
> >> * The patch doesn't make the migration process from Python 2 to Python 3
> >>
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:47 AM Raymond Hettinger <
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Berker Peksağ
> wrote:
> >
> > * Performance improvements are not bug fixes
>
> Practicality beats purity here.
Recognize that a huge number of Python users will remain in t
On 29 May 2015 at 00:11, Paul Moore wrote:
> I was hoping to be able to suggest as an application bundling option
> that people could write a trivial wrapper script in C to fire up a
> Python script, and bundle that along with its dependencies and the
> embeddable Python distribution. Looks like t
With Python 3.5 shipping an embeddable copy of the interpreter on
Windows, I thought I'd try out a simple embedded interpreter as an
experiment. I wanted to use the limited API, as I'd rather it were
easy to upgrade the interpreter without recompiling the embedding app.
But the "Very high-level em
On 28 May 2015 at 21:55, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>> I'm -1 on the idea because:
>>
>> * Performance improvements are not bug fixes
>> * The patch doesn't make the migration process from Python 2 to Python 3
>> easier
>
> And this is why people have been porting Python applications to Go.
For f
On 28 May 2015 at 22:00, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 02:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
>> Corporation.
>>
>> Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto based dispatch in
>> P
On 28 May 2015 at 23:37, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 22:00, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 05/28/2015 02:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
>>> Corporation.
>>>
>>> Would like to submit a requ
Hi Matthias and Gregory,
The results shown were run on Python 2.7.10 built using gcc. The goal of our
team is to make long-term open source contributions with emphasis on
performance optimization and support for the larger community and hence icc
wasn't used.
We've experimented with gcc profil
> On May 28, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Berker Peksağ wrote:
>
> * Performance improvements are not bug fixes
Practicality beats purity here.
Recognize that a huge number of Python users will remain in the Python2.7 world
for some time. We have a responsibility to the bulk of our users (my estimate
On 05/28/2015 02:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
> Corporation.
>
> Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto based dispatch in
> Python 2.x (which happens to be enabled by default in Py
> I'm -1 on the idea because:
>
> * Performance improvements are not bug fixes
> * The patch doesn't make the migration process from Python 2 to Python 3
> easier
And this is why people have been porting Python applications to Go.
Maybe addressing Python performance and making Python (2 or 3) a
b
won't this need python compiled with gcc 5.1 to have any effect? Which
compiler version was used for the benchmark?
the issue that negated most computed goto improvements
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39284) was only closed
very recently (r212172, 9f4ec746affbde1)
__
On 28 May 2015 at 19:47, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> That's going to be a negotiation process - companies don't typically
> contribute paid development time to open source projects out of the
> kindness of their hearts, they do it either because they're using the
> project themselves, because of deals t
On 28 May 2015 at 18:54, Berker Peksağ wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi
> wrote:
>> Attached is the computed goto patch (along with instructions to run) for
>> Python 2.7.10 (based on the patch submitted by Jeffrey Yasskin at
>> http://bugs.python.org/issue4753)
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi
wrote:
> Attached is the computed goto patch (along with instructions to run) for
> Python 2.7.10 (based on the patch submitted by Jeffrey Yasskin at
> http://bugs.python.org/issue4753). We built and tested this patch for Python
> 2.7.10
On 28.05.2015 02:17, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
> Corporation.
>
> Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto based dispatch in
> Python 2.x (which happens to be enabled by default in Pytho
98 matches
Mail list logo
