"Rocco Moretti" <roccomoretti at netscape.net> wrote in message news:3AE0CF24.9020303 at netscape.net... > Steve Holden crafted these words: > If so, then some _other_ Steve Holden, I suspect. This attribution appears to be wrong. regards StEvE > > > There's an article on the May edition of DDJ called "Compiling Perl/Tk > > Scripts" by Cameron Laird that might also be useful. The abstract is, > > people want to compile because of 1) speed; 2) code security; 3) size; > > 4) fashion (i.e., just because it's cool); 5) packaging (easier to > > deploy, no separated interpreter installation needed). > > > > Of all three er.. five, compiling dynamic scripting languages only > > effectively gives us number 4 & 5. > > > > Steve > > I think you may be overstating your case. > > The article in question, as it's title suggests, only looked at Perl/Tk > compilers, and only at those on MS-Windows, a sample size of two. It > didn't even mention compilers for any other language, or even any other > platform. > > In fact, if you want to be a stickler, you might not even consider them > "compilers." I know nothing about the products, but from the article it > seems that they are equivalent to a "freeze" tool, wrapping the perl > script with a minimal interpreter in a standalone executable. > > Thus you get 4) and 5), because you now have a single executable. > > You don't get 3) because you have both the script and the interpreter. > (Even though stripped down, it is still sizable.) Heck, for compiling > small C programs you don't get a size benefit due to the loader code and > the included library functions. > > Code security (2) is out because the "compiled" programs store the > original perl script as a plaintext string in the executable. (Easily > findable by anyone with a hex editor.) And since you're still interpreting > the program, you aren't going to get a speed advantage (1). > > My take on the article is that its directed at clueless IT directors who > see "compiler" in the program's name and think it's a pancea to their > problems. (Perhaps Mr. Laird, who has been seen in this newsgroup, could > clarify, and add his comments on how he thinks Python relates.) > > Note that a "true" compiler, which converts the script itself to machine > code and optimizes it, may see benefits in all five points. > > If Python will see such a compiler is still an open question. > > -- > Rocco Moretti > > > >
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4