5 ms·
I love how these new languages compile into a static binary and thereby avoid the deployment nightmares of Ruby/Python. More of that please!
by moe 12y ago
I love how these new languages compile into a static binary and thereby avoid the deployment nightmares of Ruby/Python.
More of that please!
- andybak 12y agopy2app and py2exe are fairly solid in this regard, aren't they?
- Wilya 12y agoNo experience with py2app, but I've used py2exe and pyinstaller in production. They can be made to work, but you regularly stumble on some more or less obscure bugs. The short of it, is that you have no guarantee that the compilation step won't introduce bugs in your program, so you need a solid test suite for the compiled binary. It's feasible, but clunky, and you really get the feeling that the compilers aren't first-class citizens.
- untitaker_ 12y agoI came across [pex](https://github.com/pantsbuild/pex https://github.com/pantsbuild/pex) a while ago. It basically compiles your package and all its dependencies into a single zipped module. I never had the opportunity to try it out myself though.
- woadwarrior01 12y agoIf PEP-441[1] makes it to Python 3.5, pex like functionality will be a part of the standard library. [1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0441/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0441/
- untitaker_ 12y agoIt's not quite the same I think. The format is very similar, yes, and I think it'd be nice if the PEX program could be made to work with this PEP. However, the PEX program bundles dependencies, which this PEP doesn't seem to be explicitly about.
- pjmlp 12y agoIf Common Lisp, Scheme or Dylan had been adopted by mainstream programmers, dynamic languages with JIT/AOT compilers would already be a common practice instead of only available to a few that care to look around.