On 29 May 2015 22:50, "Donald Stufft" <donald at stufft.io> wrote: > > This might be something that people could have done before with C/C++ but with > a nicer language behind it... but that's kind of the point? You don't need to > be stuck with a terrible language to get a nice single file executable anymore, > you can get that and use a good language at the same time which makes it a lot > more compelling to a lot more people than having to be stuck with C. Right, but the only things you can really write in Go are network services and console applications - once you start looking at curses & GUI applications on the end user side, you're back to the same kind of distribution complexity as C/C++ (where you have to choose between external dependency management or very large downloads), and once you start looking at the infrastructure side, Docker, Rocket & Kubernetes are bringing this kind of easy deployability to network services written in arbitrary languages. Hence my comment about MicroPython: the easiest way to make an interpreter runtime that's lighter than CPython is to have it *do less*. Communicating with embedded MicroPython instances via cffi could even potentially offer a way for both CPython and PyPy to split work across multiple cores without having to fundamentally redesign their main interpreters. Cheers, Nick. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150530/93121c46/attachment.html>
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