«

Chris Rebert wrote:
> Yes. py2exe is a tool which generates such Windows executables:
> http://www.py2exe.org/

Interesting... but it can't possibly be creating .exe files
(compiling)... I don't buy it... it has to be reproducing the byte code
interpreter in the code segment and the byte code in the data segment...
so that each .exe file created by said process is actually loading an
entire copy of at least the byte code interpreter with each program
"compiled" ... can't be very efficient??

.... just a question?

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:16 AM, harrismh777 <> wrote:
> Chris Rebert wrote:
>>
>> Yes. py2exe is a tool which generates such Windows executables:
>> http://www.py2exe.org/
>
> Interesting... but it can't possibly be creating .exe files (compiling).... I
> don't buy it... it has to be reproducing the byte code interpreter in the
> code segment and the byte code in the data segment... so that each .exe file
> created by said process is actually loading an entire copy of at least the
> byte code interpreter with each program "compiled" ... *can't be very
> efficient??
>
> ... just a question?

If you can figure out a good way to compile a language like Python,
you'll be very rich. Yes, it is running the interpreter and then
running the bytecode on the interpreter. It's the same way Java and
..NET work.

Benjamin Kaplan <> writes:


> If you can figure out a good way to compile a language like Python,
> you'll be very rich. Yes, it is running the interpreter and then
> running the bytecode on the interpreter. It's the same way Java and
> .NET work.

Not exactly AIUI. .NET bytecodes do actually get compiled to executable code
before being executed (unless things have changed recently - I haven't
really done anything significant with .NET in the last couple of years).

harrismh777 wrote:
> Chris Rebert wrote:
>> Yes. py2exe is a tool which generates such Windows executables:
>> http://www.py2exe.org/
>
> Interesting... but it can't possibly be creating .exe files
> (compiling)...

Yes and no. The python program is not being compiled. The Python
system, along with all the necessary libraries and support .py files,
are combined into a .exe loader. When the .exe is run it extracts the
Python interpreter, makes all the other files available, and then starts
it running.*

~Ethan~

*The details are not exact, but this is the general idea.

On 2011-03-29, harrismh777 <> wrote:
> Chris Rebert wrote:
>> Yes. py2exe is a tool which generates such Windows executables:
>> http://www.py2exe.org/
>
> Interesting... but it can't possibly be creating .exe files

It is.

> (compiling)...

It isn't.

> I don't buy it...

Then don't.

> it has to be reproducing the byte code interpreter in the code
> segment and the byte code in the data segment...

Something like that.

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Either CONFESS now or
at we go to "PEOPLE'S COURT"!!
gmail.com

> it has to be reproducing the byte code
> interpreter in the code segment and the byte code in the data segment...
> so that each .exe file created by said process is actually loading an
> entire copy of at least the byte code interpreter with each program
> "compiled" ...

Yes, if you think of it as a handy packager and not a compiler, it
makes sense.

>*can't be very efficient??

How do you define efficient? All I know is that it works well. You
click on
the .exe and a moment later you are running the application despite
not having
Python installed on your computer. I'm grateful for its existence.

Che

On Mar 29, 12:16*am, harrismh777 <harrismh...@charter.net> wrote:
> Chris Rebert wrote:
> > Yes. py2exe is a tool which generates such Windows executables:
> >http://www.py2exe.org/
>
> Interesting... but it can't possibly be creating .exe files
> (compiling)... I don't buy it... it has to be reproducing the byte code
> interpreter in the code segment and the byte code in the data segment...
> so that each .exe file created by said process is actually loading an
> entire copy of at least the byte code interpreter with each program
> "compiled" ... *

Yes, if you think of it as a handy packager and not a compiler, it
makes sense.

> can't be very efficient??

How do you define efficient? All I know is that it works well. You
click on the .exe and a moment later you are running the application
despite not having Python or any of the third party libraries you've
used installed on your computer. I'm grateful for its existence.