(original) (raw)

Go seems to be popular where I work. It is replacing Python in a number of
places, although Python (and especially Python 3) is still a very important
part of our language toolbox.

There are several reasons why Go is gaining popularity. Single-file
executables is definitely a reason; it makes deployment very easy, even if it
increases the maintenance burden (e.g. without shared libraries, you have
multiple copies of things so when a security fix is required for one of those
things you have to recompile the world).

Start up times and memory footprint are also factors. Probably not much to be
done about the latter, but perhaps PEP 432 can lead to improvements in the
former. (Hey Nick, I'm guessing you'll want to bump that one back to 3.6.)

Certainly better support for multi-cores comes up a lot. It should be a SMoE
to just get rid of the GIL once and for all .

One thing I've seen more than once is that new development happens in Python
until the problem is understood, then the code is ported to Go. Python's
short path from idea to working code, along with its ability to quickly morph
as requirements and understanding changes, its batteries included philosophy,
and its "fits-your-brain" consistency are its biggest strengths!

On May 28, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:

\>I think docker is a pretty crummy answer to Go’s static binaries. What I would
\>love is for Python to get:
\>
\>\* The ability to import .so modules via zipzimport (ideally without a
\>temporary directory, but that might require newer APIs from libc and such).

+1 - Thomas Wouters mentioned at the language summit some work being done on
glibc to add dlopen\_from\_memory() (sp?) which would allow for loading .so
files directly from a zip. Not sure what the status is of that, but it would
be a great addition.

\>\* The ability to create a “static” Python that links everything it needs into
\>the binary to do a zipimport of everything else (including the stdlib).

+1

\>\*The ability to execute a zipfile that has been concat onto the end of the
\>Python binary.

+1

\>I think that if we get all of that, we could easily create a single file
\>executable with real, native support from Python by simply compiling Python
\>in that static mode and then appending a zip file containing the standard
\>library and any other distributions we need to the end of it.
\>
\>We’d probably want some more quality of life improvements around accessing
\>resources from within that zip file as well, but that can be done as a
\>library easier than the above three things can.

E.g. you really should be using the pkg\_resources APIs for loading resources
from your packages, otherwise you're gonna have problems with zip
executables. We've talked before about adopting some of these APIs into
Python's stdlib. pkgutil is a start, and the higher level APIs from
pkg\_resources should probably go there.

Cheers,
\-Barry

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/thomas%40python.org