Python compiled on Windows

[Franz Steinhaeusler]

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?

[Duncan Booth]

Franz Steinhaeusler <fr*****************@gmx.atwrote:

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.

[hg]

Duncan Booth wrote:

Franz Steinhaeusler <fr*****************@gmx.atwrote:

>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

[Franz Steinhaeusler]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:17:48 +0100, hg <[e-mail]:

>Duncan Booth wrote:

>Franz Steinhaeusler <fr*****************@gmx.atwrote:

>>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.

[Duncan Booth]

Franz Steinhaeusler <fr*****************@gmx.atwrote:

@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.

[Franz Steinhaeusler]

On 6 Feb 2007 08:35:08 GMT, Duncan Booth <du**********@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Franz Steinhaeusler <fr*****************@gmx.atwrote:

>@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! :)

[Duncan Booth]

Franz Steinhaeusler <fr*****************@gmx.atwrote:

>>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.

[Franz Steinhaeusler]

On 7 Feb 2007 09:44:32 GMT, Duncan Booth <du**********@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Franz Steinhaeusler <fr*****************@gmx.atwrote:

>>>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.