Comments on: 64k tinypy - now with VM included http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/ games, tech, web, stuff, biz, and bilge Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:21:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: philhassey http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/#comment-642 philhassey Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:05:11 +0000 http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/#comment-642 Carl, Cool .. I've never actually used stackless, so I don't actually use those features myself yet. But it's nice to know that I'm "most of the way there" if I do want them :) Phil Carl,

Cool .. I’ve never actually used stackless, so I don’t actually use those features myself yet. But it’s nice to know that I’m “most of the way there” if I do want them :)

Phil

]]> By: Carl Friedrich Bolz http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/#comment-620 Carl Friedrich Bolz Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:07:08 +0000 http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/#comment-620 Hi Phil, actually, being stackless in the "it doesn’t use the C-stack" sense of the word makes it rather easy to support cool Stackless Python features like tasklets or continuations. The hard work of Stackless Python was not using the C stack, not the actual user-exposed features. If you are concerned about size, just expose some very primitive stack switching and the rest can be done with libraries on top of that. Fun project! Carl Friedrich Bolz Hi Phil,

actually, being stackless in the “it doesn’t use the C-stack” sense of the word makes it rather easy to support cool Stackless Python features like tasklets or continuations. The hard work of Stackless Python was not using the C stack, not the actual user-exposed features. If you are concerned about size, just expose some very primitive stack switching and the rest can be done with libraries on top of that.

Fun project!

Carl Friedrich Bolz

]]> By: philhassey http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/#comment-618 philhassey Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:48:15 +0000 http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/#comment-618 ... and with my interest in game development -- this could (no promises) turn out to be actually useful. … and with my interest in game development — this could (no promises) turn out to be actually useful.

]]> By: philhassey http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/#comment-617 philhassey Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:44:15 +0000 http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/#comment-617 Honestly, no "really good reason" other than I'm having a bit of fun .. I am quite interested in the concept of keeping things small .. so I'm enjoying seeing how much I can get into 64k of code. LLVM (for example) is a 4.8MB compressed source download. If I were being practical, I'd just break down and master SWIG or pyrex or the C--python API. In the meantime, however, it's interesting learning how all the parts of a language work together. And keeping it at 64k makes it an easy to play with project. Once things get bigger than that, they start becoming "work". -Phil Honestly, no “really good reason” other than I’m having a bit of fun ..

I am quite interested in the concept of keeping things small .. so I’m enjoying seeing how much I can get into 64k of code. LLVM (for example) is a 4.8MB compressed source download.

If I were being practical, I’d just break down and master SWIG or pyrex or the C–python API. In the meantime, however, it’s interesting learning how all the parts of a language work together. And keeping it at 64k makes it an easy to play with project. Once things get bigger than that, they start becoming “work”.

-Phil

]]> By: manuelg http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/#comment-615 manuelg Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:10:05 +0000 http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2008/01/10/64k-tinypy-now-with-vm-included/#comment-615 Why not LLVM? Not criticizing, because I admit I am far too stupid to make a meaningful positive criticism. But why not? (I thought LLVM would "feel" like old Apple II 6502 assembly language. From what I can figure out, not even close. I am having a hard time getting a feel for how LLVM works.) Why not LLVM?

Not criticizing, because I admit I am far too stupid to make a meaningful positive criticism.

But why not?

(I thought LLVM would “feel” like old Apple II 6502 assembly language. From what I can figure out, not even close. I am having a hard time getting a feel for how LLVM works.)

]]>