On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Noufal Ibrahim <nou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Dhananjay Nene <dhananjay.n...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > [..] > > > I think the comparison of a VM enhanced CPython vs. traditional CPython > > is > > a little unfair when conducted from a binary size perspective (and not > > particularly critical imo). The actual python application code binary > size > > isn't changing - which is what should matter. > > [..] > > > Hardly. I'm investigating embedding a subset of the interpreter on a > hardware device. If it's a 100 MB binary, that's out of the question! > >From what I could understand the LLVM JIT functionality is optional and can be switched off. If so it might be feasible to do the same for low footprint requirement applications such as the one you refer to. Not compiling in a piece of functionality (in this case the JIT compiler) is not likely to be an unsatisfactory tradeoff imo. This assumes that LLVM/JIT features can be simply not compiled into the python binary. That should be feasible to the best of my interpretation. However if thats incorrect, my argument above is invalid. Dhananjay > > > -- > ~noufal > http://nibrahim.net.in > _______________________________________________ > BangPypers mailing list > BangPypers@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers > -- -------------------------------------------------------- blog: http://blog.dhananjaynene.com twitter: http://twitter.com/dnene http://twitter.com/_pythonic _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
