Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'python.': 0.02; 'true,': 0.04; 'subject:Python': 0.05; 'cpython': 0.05; 'source.': 0.05; 'executable': 0.07; 'python': 0.09; 'definition,': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'aug': 0.13; '"does': 0.16; 'definition.': 0.16; 'from:addr:behnel.de': 0.16; 'from:addr:stefan_ml': 0.16; 'from:name:stefan behnel': 0.16; 'message-id:@dough.gmane.org': 0.16; 'received:188.174': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:mnet-online.de': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'any,': 0.17; 'stefan': 0.17; '>>>': 0.18; '(by': 0.22; 'precise': 0.22; 'subject:skip:i 10': 0.22; 'header': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.25; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; '(which': 0.26; "doesn't": 0.28; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.28; 'agreed.': 0.29; 'exclude': 0.29; 'installed,': 0.29; 'source': 0.29; 'code': 0.31; 'running': 0.32; '+0200,': 0.33; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.33; "can't": 0.34; 'list': 0.35; 'received:org': 0.36; 'but': 0.36; 'well.': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'files': 0.38; 'sure': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'subject:-': 0.40; 'header:Received:5': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'realized': 0.71; 'design)': 0.84; 'much,': 0.84 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Stefan Behnel Subject: Re: On-topic: alternate Python implementations Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 08:46:19 +0200 References: <501cbdf8$0$29978$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <20120804232510.GA23550@jaerhard.com> <20120805122806.GB23550@jaerhard.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-188-174-105-14.dynamic.mnet-online.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: <20120805122806.GB23550@jaerhard.com> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 27 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1344235595 news.xs4all.nl 6988 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:56760 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:26611 Jürgen A. Erhard, 05.08.2012 14:28: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 07:46:59AM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> Jürgen A. Erhard, 05.08.2012 01:25: >>> None of the other implementations require Python for actually >>> compiling or running Python source. >> >> Nuitka was on the list as well. > > True, which I realized only after my missive. But doesn't change > much, only that the list is wrong. Agreed. > My definition, to also answer your following post, is "does not rely > on any executable part of the CPython source (which includes .c files > and executable code in header files if any, but of course can exclude > the stdlib)". Not sure that's precise enough, but... if it can't > run/work on a system that has no shred of CPython installed, it's not > an alternative *implementation*. I can live with that definition. Cython is (by design) not an independent reimplementation of Python. Stefan