Duncan Booth wrote:
Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. Portability: The Microsoft C# JIT compiler runs under Windows .NET
on x86/amd64 and maybe it64 and what else? Just porting .NET to run
0n Linux on the same processors was/is a bit task. Does MONO have a
JIT also?
Technically there is no such thing as a Microsoft C# JIT compiler: the C#
compiler targets IL and the JIT compilers convert IL to the native machine,
but C# is just one of the frontend compilers you could use.
Microsoft do JIT compilers for .Net Compact Framework that target ARM,
MIPS, SHx and x86. The Mono JIT supports:
s390, s390x (32 and 64 bits) Linux
SPARC(32) Solaris, Linux
PowerPC Linux, Mac OSX
x86 Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Microsoft Windows, Solaris, OS X
x86-64: AMD64 and EM64T (64 bit) Linux, Solaris
IA64 Itanium2 (64 bit) Linux
ARM: little and big endian Linux (both the old and the new ABI)
Alpha Linux
MIPS Linux
HPPA Linux
(from http://www.mono-project.com/Supported_Platforms)
So I'd say .Net scores pretty highly on the portability stakes. (Although
of course code written for .Net might not do so well).
Did you mean IL scores highly? In any case, scratch 1. portability as a
reason why CPython lacks JIT. That leave 2. $ in the multimillions.
More
3. Design difference1: I suspect that IL was designed with JIT
compilation in mind, whereas PyCode was certainly not.
4. Design difference2: The first 'killer ap' for Python was driving
compiled Fortran/C functions (early Numeric). If a 'Python' program
spend 95% of its time in compiled-to-machine-code extensions, reducing
the other 5% to nothing gains little. CPython *was* and has-been
designed for this.
The process continues. The relatively new itertools module was designed
and tested in Python (see itertools in Libary reference). But the
delivered module is compiled C.
tjr
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
