Tiny/small/minimalist Python?

[rtk]

I'm looking for information on building a tiny/small/minimalist/
vanilla python interpreter. One that implements the core language and
a few of the key modules but isn't tied to any specific operating
system.

I guess I'm asking for the smallest subset of the standard Python
source code files that is necessary to get a working interpreter using
a plain C compiler.

Is this even possible? If so, has someone done it already? I've
looked on Google and in comp.lang.pytho n but nothing comes up.

Thanks!
Ron

[Terry Reedy]

"rtk" <on********@hot mail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o11g2000prd.goo glegroups.com.. .
| I'm looking for information on building a tiny/small/minimalist/
| vanilla python interpreter. One that implements the core language and
| a few of the key modules but isn't tied to any specific operating
| system.
|
| I guess I'm asking for the smallest subset of the standard Python
| source code files that is necessary to get a working interpreter using
| a plain C compiler.
|
| Is this even possible? If so, has someone done it already? I've
| looked on Google and in comp.lang.pytho n but nothing comes up.

Google 'tinypython' and first entry is Mark Hammond's answer to nearly same
question. And some other responses might help you

[Cameron Laird]

In article <11************ **********@o11g 2000prd.googleg roups.com>,
rtk <on********@hot mail.comwrote:

>I'm looking for information on building a tiny/small/minimalist/
vanilla python interpreter. One that implements the core language and
a few of the key modules but isn't tied to any specific operating
system.

I guess I'm asking for the smallest subset of the standard Python
source code files that is necessary to get a working interpreter using
a plain C compiler.

Is this even possible? If so, has someone done it already? I've
looked on Google and in comp.lang.pytho n but nothing comes up.

[Paul Rubin]

rtk <on********@hot mail.comwrites:

I'm looking for information on building a tiny/small/minimalist/
vanilla python interpreter. One that implements the core language and
a few of the key modules but isn't tied to any specific operating
system.

You've gotten good suggestions about Python configurations. Depending
on your application you might look at alternative languages as well.
Lua and Hedgehog Lisp both come to mind as small embedded interpreters.

[Campbell Barton]

Cameron Laird wrote:

In article <11************ **********@o11g 2000prd.googleg roups.com>,
rtk <on********@hot mail.comwrote:

>I'm looking for information on building a tiny/small/minimalist/
vanilla python interpreter. One that implements the core language and
a few of the key modules but isn't tied to any specific operating
system.

I guess I'm asking for the smallest subset of the standard Python
source code files that is necessary to get a working interpreter using
a plain C compiler.

Is this even possible? If so, has someone done it already? I've
looked on Google and in comp.lang.pytho n but nothing comes up.

.
.
.
Tiny Python, PyMite, EmbeddedPython, Diet Python, deeply embedded
python, ...--I need to write up a page that explains these.

Python binary/exe its self dosnt include much. if you get the full build
and just remove modules, you can strip a lot out.. scripts that try
import those files just wont work.

[rtk]

On Jul 1, 10:12 pm, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.i nvalidwrote:

You've gotten good suggestions about Python configurations. Depending
on your application you might look at alternative languages as well.
Lua and Hedgehog Lisp both come to mind as small embedded interpreters.

PyMite will get a closer look from me eventually but I found that Lua
will fit my immediate needs quite nicely. Thanks for the suggestion.

FYI.. I wanted a simple version of Python to run on an ancient DEC
Alpha box. I got VMS Python 2.5 up and running but it is too slow to
use. It takes *minutes* to get the interpreter prompt after typing
'python'! Lua, on the other hand, compiled without changes (used the
ANSI switch) and runs nicely. I'm always up for learning a new
language anyway.

Ron

[Paul Rubin]

rtk <on********@hot mail.comwrites:

FYI.. I wanted a simple version of Python to run on an ancient DEC
Alpha box. I got VMS Python 2.5 up and running but it is too slow to
use. It takes *minutes* to get the interpreter prompt after typing
'python'!

Something is wrong. Maybe it's trying to DNS itself and timing out,
or something like that.

[rtk]

On Jul 2, 9:43 am, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.i nvalidwrote:

rtk <oneelkr...@hot mail.comwrites:

FYI.. I wanted a simple version of Python to run on an ancient DEC
Alpha box. I got VMS Python 2.5 up and running but it is too slow to
use. It takes *minutes* to get the interpreter prompt after typing
'python'!

Something is wrong. Maybe it's trying to DNS itself and timing out,
or something like that.

The trouble is that the Alpha is too old. VMS Python is compiled for
a newer machine with a different instruction set and the Alpha is
emulating the machine instructions it does not have (a nice feature of
OpenVMS, but of dubious value).

For my needs, the effort of recompiling all of Python wasn't worth
it. Since Lua runs under Unix it will be perfect for my project. I'm
writing a compiler for a simple language to 6502 assembly code. I've
already written one in Python for small PIC microcontroller s (see PIC0
at http://www.geocities.com/oneelkruns/) and was planning on using
Python for this compiler project as well but it will be fun to use
something new, too. I am thinking of doing most of the development in
OpenVMS, just for the heck of it.

Ron

[Irmen de Jong]

Paul Rubin wrote:

rtk <on********@hot mail.comwrites:

>FYI.. I wanted a simple version of Python to run on an ancient DEC
Alpha box. I got VMS Python 2.5 up and running but it is too slow to
use. It takes *minutes* to get the interpreter prompt after typing
'python'!

Something is wrong. Maybe it's trying to DNS itself and timing out,
or something like that.

Something is definately wrong.

Back in the days my port of Python to the Commodore Amiga machine ran
quite comfortably on a 50 mhz CPU with 4 Mb of RAM. (ok ok it was
Python 1.5.2, that has to be said).
Python started in about 5 seconds on that Amiga if I remember
correctly. I'm quite sure your 'ancient' DEC Alpha box is way more
powerful than my Amiga back then.

--Irmen

[rtk]

On Jul 2, 6:26 pm, Irmen de Jong <irmen.NOS...@x s4all.nlwrote:

Back in the days my port of Python to the Commodore Amiga machine ran
quite comfortably on a 50 mhz CPU with 4 Mb of RAM. (ok ok it was
Python 1.5.2, that has to be said).
Python started in about 5 seconds on that Amiga if I remember
correctly. I'm quite sure your 'ancient' DEC Alpha box is way more
powerful than my Amiga back then.

Yes, I agree (the box in question is an AlphaServer 1000 4/200), but
the killer is the fact that the Alpha is emulating *machine
instructions* that are part of the Python image which are not part of
the instruction set of that Alpha. That's what kills performance.
When I asked about it on the VMS Python forum I was told to give my
Alpha to a museum and get a more powerful machine :)

I did look briefly at Python 1.5.2, since it is simpler, but I'm
taking the trouble I've had as an excuse to learn a new language. So
far, I'm liking Lua, save the big pet peeve of starting indices at 1
and not 0 as all sane people do. I'm currently using Python quite a
bit for other projects, so it won't be neglected.

Ron