Re: Python compiled on Windows
Franz Steinhaeusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, people have compiled Python with gcc on windows. I believe it is slightly slower than the standard release, but I would guess that may depend on the exact versions of gcc/msc you choose to compare, and the exact compiler options you choose (or I may even be imagining it entirely). I cannot imagine, that there is a decisive difference, especially as in gcc, you have also a couple of options. I did a quick comparison running pystone and taking the best of several runs: On one system which had the Windows Python 2.4 distribution and also Python 2.4 installed under cygwin: Windows Python 2.4: 46k Cygwin Python 2.4: 41k On another system which has a dual boot setup: Windows Python 2.5: 43.7k Ubuntu Python 2.5: 42.0k So in the first case there was about a 12% improvement and in the second case about 5% improvement using the Windows distribution. I don't know whether the gap is closing from improvements in gcc or whether there is an OS related difference as well. Unfortunately cygwin doesn't appear to offer Python 2.5 yet. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python compiled on Windows
On 7 Feb 2007 09:44:32 GMT, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Franz Steinhaeusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, people have compiled Python with gcc on windows. I believe it is slightly slower than the standard release, but I would guess that may depend on the exact versions of gcc/msc you choose to compare, and the exact compiler options you choose (or I may even be imagining it entirely). I cannot imagine, that there is a decisive difference, especially as in gcc, you have also a couple of options. I did a quick comparison running pystone and taking the best of several runs: On one system which had the Windows Python 2.4 distribution and also Python 2.4 installed under cygwin: Windows Python 2.4: 46k Cygwin Python 2.4: 41k On another system which has a dual boot setup: Windows Python 2.5: 43.7k Ubuntu Python 2.5: 42.0k So in the first case there was about a 12% improvement and in the second case about 5% improvement using the Windows distribution. I don't know whether the gap is closing from improvements in gcc or whether there is an OS related difference as well. Unfortunately cygwin doesn't appear to offer Python 2.5 yet. Hello Duncan, interesting test, so this little gap don't care at all (for me). If the difference would be say 30% or more, than that would make a perceptible difference, I think. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python compiled on Windows
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:17:48 +0100, hg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duncan Booth wrote: Franz Steinhaeusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I'm only curious. Why is Python and most extension (also wxPython) not built using an open source compiler like gcc or g++ on Windows? I'm always wondering, why Microsoft is still supported in that way, using VC++ 7.1, if I'm not wrong. Ok, maybe the compiled assembler code could be better, but this cannot be the reason, or? It would be wonderful (from the principle) if this could be possible. From the standpoint of open source. What are your opinions? Practicality beats purity. To maximise the interoperability of Python with other software on the platform it makes sense to use the best supported compiler environment for the platform. @Duncan: Yes, you are not wrong! :) But this is not really open source in my opinion. Ok there is the VC++ toolkit for download. I'm just curious, if there ever had compiled on windows using that toolkit or even with gcc, and with gcc, whether there are problems or/and differences in speed and run time behaviour. Still, if one considers the many threads of people trying to get it to work with the free version + other people that had to invest in VS mostly for that (I did) / it might eventually be fair to reconsider. + a dll is a dll hg @hg: that would be cool. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python compiled on Windows
Franz Steinhaeusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @Duncan: Yes, you are not wrong! :) But this is not really open source in my opinion. Ok there is the VC++ toolkit for download. Which I agree totally is a real pain finding the right versions to download. I'm just curious, if there ever had compiled on windows using that toolkit or even with gcc, and with gcc, whether there are problems or/and differences in speed and run time behaviour. Yes, people have compiled Python with gcc on windows. I believe it is slightly slower than the standard release, but I would guess that may depend on the exact versions of gcc/msc you choose to compare, and the exact compiler options you choose (or I may even be imagining it entirely). As I understand it, you can use Mingw to compile extension modules which are compatible with the standard release of Python, and of course there is always cygwin. But I still don't understand what difference it makes to anyone between: an application (could be open or closed source) running on an open source language (Python) compiled with a closed source compiler on a closed source OS. versus an application (could be open or closed source) running on an open source language (Python) compiled with an open source compiler on a closed source OS. at the end of the day you still have a mix of open and closed source components. If it makes you feel better to be using an open source compiler that's fine, but it doesn't really do anything for me. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python compiled on Windows
On 6 Feb 2007 08:35:08 GMT, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Franz Steinhaeusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @Duncan: Yes, you are not wrong! :) But this is not really open source in my opinion. Ok there is the VC++ toolkit for download. Which I agree totally is a real pain finding the right versions to download. I'm just curious, if there ever had compiled on windows using that toolkit or even with gcc, and with gcc, whether there are problems or/and differences in speed and run time behaviour. Yes, people have compiled Python with gcc on windows. I believe it is slightly slower than the standard release, but I would guess that may depend on the exact versions of gcc/msc you choose to compare, and the exact compiler options you choose (or I may even be imagining it entirely). I cannot imagine, that there is a decisive difference, especially as in gcc, you have also a couple of options. As I understand it, you can use Mingw to compile extension modules which are compatible with the standard release of Python, and of course there is always cygwin. But I still don't understand what difference it makes to anyone between: an application (could be open or closed source) running on an open source language (Python) compiled with a closed source compiler on a closed source OS. versus an application (could be open or closed source) running on an open source language (Python) compiled with an open source compiler on a closed source OS. For me it's more a issue of principle. :) Ok, the OS is as it is, but the layer is more open. If there would be no toolkit, you have to buy (and many have bought Visual Studio) for open source projects, and that is the point, where I cannot make friend with me. at the end of the day you still have a mix of open and closed source components. If it makes you feel better to be using an open source compiler that's fine, but it doesn't really do anything for me. Ok, I let your opinion, it is also fine with me! :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python compiled on Windows
Franz Steinhaeusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I'm only curious. Why is Python and most extension (also wxPython) not built using an open source compiler like gcc or g++ on Windows? I'm always wondering, why Microsoft is still supported in that way, using VC++ 7.1, if I'm not wrong. Ok, maybe the compiled assembler code could be better, but this cannot be the reason, or? It would be wonderful (from the principle) if this could be possible. From the standpoint of open source. What are your opinions? Practicality beats purity. To maximise the interoperability of Python with other software on the platform it makes sense to use the best supported compiler environment for the platform. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python compiled on Windows
Duncan Booth wrote: Franz Steinhaeusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I'm only curious. Why is Python and most extension (also wxPython) not built using an open source compiler like gcc or g++ on Windows? I'm always wondering, why Microsoft is still supported in that way, using VC++ 7.1, if I'm not wrong. Ok, maybe the compiled assembler code could be better, but this cannot be the reason, or? It would be wonderful (from the principle) if this could be possible. From the standpoint of open source. What are your opinions? Practicality beats purity. To maximise the interoperability of Python with other software on the platform it makes sense to use the best supported compiler environment for the platform. Still, if one considers the many threads of people trying to get it to work with the free version + other people that had to invest in VS mostly for that (I did) / it might eventually be fair to reconsider. + a dll is a dll hg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Python compiled on Windows
Hello, I'm only curious. Why is Python and most extension (also wxPython) not built using an open source compiler like gcc or g++ on Windows? I'm always wondering, why Microsoft is still supported in that way, using VC++ 7.1, if I'm not wrong. Ok, maybe the compiled assembler code could be better, but this cannot be the reason, or? It would be wonderful (from the principle) if this could be possible. From the standpoint of open source. What are your opinions? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
