Comments on: Why Python should adopt the mono runtime

By: Andrés G. Aragoneses

Andrés G. Aragoneses — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:46:40 +0000

I think that what really happens is that Python community doesn’t want to be “tied” to any other environment, that’s why they will always refuse to merge with Jython/IronPython/Boo/whatever…

What they should really do is migrate to Parrot, the only VM for dynamic languages that should bring unity (interoperability) between Perl, PHP, Ruby, Python, etc.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:27:19 +0000

Seth: Python is *actually* portable. But I wonder: does it has ever have a JIT?

I mean, you can have an interpreter (like Perl, and I could say Python does have one as well), which doesn’t generate native code, and, besides other things, only need to be ansi C compatible, and using POSIX libraries.

On the other hand, providing a JIT -like Mono does-, which actually generates native code per platform, doesn need to be tuned for every platform – this is the trade off between portability and performance. It’s sort of normal, and you have performance vs portability.

Mono could have an interpreter instead of a JIT – but that would kill performance. Or it could have both an interpreter and a JIT, but that would be a lof of extra work – likely not worth the effort.

By: Paddy3118

Paddy3118 — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:21:45 +0000

Implement Python on Mono.

If it is good enough, then people will use it.

- Paddy.

By: Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:15:20 +0000

Who drives to the gym? Seriously, run that shit, man.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:05:47 +0000

“Are the Python community willing to drop all their current 100% license-secure code and risk their work”

So, are you saying that CPython is 100% guaranteed not to infringe any patents? Would you back that legally? It brings in mind a recent blogpost on software patents and how much they suck: http://www.jprl.com/Blog/archive/development/mono/2009/Jan-19.html