IronPython 0.7.1 is released to the world!

re: IronPython 0.7.1 is released to the world!

BillyG — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:02:25 GMT

I was playing with this all last night, thanks so much. I also read Guido's documentation which was great for me (coming from COBOL lol).

FYI: none of the mailing lists that I ahve encountered (including the one you just suggested) are bringing up anything but a blank page.

re: IronPython 0.7.1 is released to the world!

Daniel — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:55:50 GMT

Wonderful to hear from you again! I was beginning to wonder if we were ever going to see IronPython completed... I thought MS might serrupticiously release Microsoft Visual Snake :P

Just a question: I realize that it would be very difficult to pull off given that IronPython doesn't actually run the CPython interpreter behind the scenes, but is there any chance of using PInvoke to allow IronPython to load existing native-code Python extensions? If you could do that, it would mean IronPython could be a drop-in replacement to CPython.

Anyway, keep up the awesome work!

re: IronPython 0.7.1 is released to the world!

Billy — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:48:20 GMT

I sent this to you yesterday and it is still the case this morning: you posted this:

most of the interesting discussions are happening on the old mailing list

well, that link opens a blank page.

re: IronPython 0.7.1 is released to the world!

hugunin — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:24:12 GMT

I haven't had any problems with the "old mailing list" link above, i.e. http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com

Unless a lot of people are seeing this, this is probably best followed up off-line with Billy.

re: IronPython 0.7.1 is released to the world!

hugunin — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:41:01 GMT

How best to support existing Python C-based modules is still an open question and one that I'd like to write a full blog entry on. The quick set of possible answers is:

1. Rewrite the module in C# using .NET libraries. This will produce the smallest and best integrated modules, but will be the most work. This is what has been done for Jython.
2. Build a bridge like you suggest using the existing CPython dll. This would be the fastest way to get an existing Python module running in IronPython, but bridges are always a kludge and have lots of rough edges that can't be fixed.
3. Arrange to port the modules to managed C++ combined with a fake set of include files that makes the modules really link with IronPython rather than CPython. In theory, this could let the modules work well with IronPython with only a recompile required. This idea is the one that I have the least confidence is even possible.

re: IronPython 0.7.1 is released to the world!

Jim Arnold — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:35:40 GMT

IronPython: fantastic.
GotDotNet: ugh. Is there no alternative?

Jim