David Mertz, Ph.D.
Basket weaver, Gnosis Software, Inc.
What most programmers probably think of when they talk about "Python" is the specific implementation sometimes called "CPython" (because it is implemented in C). However, Python as a language specification has been implemented several times. One such implementation is "JPython" which is written in Java, which compiles Python source code to Java bytecodes, and which provides transparent access to Java classes. A planned implementation is Python for .NET, Microsoft's forthcoming cross-language technology platform. This article consists of annotated interviews with the developers of JPython and Python for .NET.
Python is a freely available, very-high-level, interpreted language developed by Guido van Rossum. It combines a clear syntax with powerful (but optional) object-oriented semantics. Python is available for almost every computer platform you might find yourself working on, and has strong portability between platforms.
In my previous interviews with John Max Skaller and Christian Tismer, I presented readers with some information--and hopefully insight--into Vyper and Stackless Python. I also made some general remarks in that column about language implementations, and the theoretical and historical reasons for them. I recommend readers glance at those comments, but in the interest of presenting as much as possible of my conversations with the developers of JPython and Python for .NET, I do not wish to repeat those comment here.
Instead, let's jump into the interviews with Mark Hammond, Finn Bock, and Barry Warsaw. They are all fascinating developers with a lot to say that will interest Python programmers. I thank them for their participation in these interviews.
Mark Hammond is a developer most Python programmers who use Windows will know something about. Mark created, and generously made available to the Python community, the excellent PythonWin development environment and PythonCOM extensions. Given this background, Mark was a logical contact for Microsoft to turn to in their desire to make Python available for their future .NET platform.
I must confess that I have not typically understood the real meat behind many of Microsoft stategic announcements. Mark's interview helps clarify this (inasmuch as he is able), but a few details he was not able to discuss because of NDA restrictions. One thing I found very useful was some comments made by developers of the Mercury language, which is also being ported to .NET (see Resources). The Mercury folks may have been under looser NDA agreements than Mark was, and they may or may not have had a similar agreement as that involved in Python for .NET. Make your own guesses. In any case, this is nice background also on .NET in general.
But let us look at what Mark Hammond has to say. He indicated that a working version of Python for .NET should be available RSN (it did not seem to be as of writing). Hopefully, by the time this interview is published, some betas/alphas will be available from the ActiveState link in the Resources section.
Mertz: Exactly what is Python for .NET? I guess I am especially curious how Python for .NET relates to your own PythonWin and PythonCOM extensions to CPython that seem to already give you control of Windows' guts.
Hammond: Python for .NET is a compiler and runtime that implements Python on the Microsoft .NET platform.
Hammond: The .NET platform provides a runtime and metadata system designed to allow complete language interoperability - however, to achieve that, the languages must work in that runtime.
Hammond: For example, if a Python class should be made public so a Visual Basic programmer can inherit from it, the Python class must be implemented and described in .NET terms, rather than in CPython terms.
Hammond: The advantage of Python .NET is simply that you can interoperate with the .NET framework. There are numerous disadvantages, mainly due to the immaturity of the implementation, but these will be addressed over time.
Mertz: What, if any, significant incompatibilities exist between Python for .NET and CPython? How easy am I likely to find moving application code between the two implementations? What are the major gotchas?
Hammond: Most modules have not yet been implemented. Existing modules written in C can not be used. If you are not targetting the .NET framework, you would almost certainly not use Python .NET.
Mertz: One main advantage of Python for .NET is that it will allow easy inter-language communication, and multi-language application development. Is this on target as a big selling point? If so, can you give a hypothetical example for readers of why this is better than using Python+C+SWIG, for example?
Hammond: Your example of Python+C+SWIG should be obvious inter-language calling should not be that hard. SWIG is a great product, and has taken writing Python C extensions from a black art to merely difficult :)
Hammond: Comparing .NET with COM and/or Corba would be more reasonable - COM and Corba both offer a solution where cross-language calling "just works", without any hand-crafting or compiling necessary. .NET takes this one step further, buy offering cross-language inheritance and exception capabilities, for example.
Hammond: These advantages are very similar to what you would find with multiple language implementations under the JVM.
Mertz: If I understand things correctly, it seems like Python for .NET is most similar to JPython inasmuch as Python for .NET will "compile" your Python scripts to the format of an external VM. Is garbage collection automated, as in JVMs? Do you have any early guesses about peformance of MS's future VM? Also, will the .NET VM support some of the exotic features of Stackless and/or Vyper, like continuations, generators, coroutines, tail-recursion, lazy-evaluation?
Hammond: Yes, in concept. The terms of the Microsoft Beta agreement prevent me from talking about performance. We will only be targetting features defined in the core Python language reference. Garbage collection is inherent as in JPython and JVMs.
Mertz: My column appears under a Linux category , so that might suggest something about my readership: they might tend to be mistrustful of anything Microsoft has their hands in. So I have a few questions closer to the politics of Python for .NET.
Mertz: What is Python for .NET's reason for being (other than because MS wants it for their own positioning, I suppose)?
Hammond: So people who choose the target .NET can do so using Python. Microsoft involved Python and many other languages in the early days to ensure that their VM was indeed language agnostic. Microsoft made a number of changes to their VM based on feedback from the various language implementors.
Mertz: What is MS's financial relationship to Python for .NET? Do you pay them? Do they pay you? Upfront? In some sort of residuals? What sort of license will Python for .NET carry?
Hammond: Microsoft entered a contract with myself and Greg Stein to build Python for .NET. The terms of that contract remain confidential. I am now employed by ActiveState Tools Corporation (who did the Perl for .NET implementation), and I expect they will enter a similar contract with Microsoft for the completion of the port. The source code will carry a "(c) Microsoft" note, but be freely available.
Mertz: Related to the license issue, but not reducible to it, I cannot help but worry that MS will attempt to use proprietary extensions and "enhancements" in a familiar "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. In other words, I have a certain fear that Python for .NET might not actually be very good for Python in the medium/long term. How would you address such concerns if readers share them?
Hammond: If .NET becomes a significant force, then having a Python implementation that targets it can only help Python - much in the same way that Python is helped by having JPython available to target the JVM.
For JPython, I was fortunate enough to get some responses from both Barry Warsaw and Finn Bock. Barry and Finn are currently the two most active developers working on JPython, but it is a real community effort. It should be noted (as my interviewees do), that JPython was originally developed by Jim Hugunin, who is no longer able to be actively involved with maintaining it.
Between Finn and Barry I received an absolute wealth of comments and responses. Unfortunately, length constraints make it impossible to include everything in this column. I have decided make available the full interview comments with Finn and Barry at the link in the Resources section. In addition, I will place Christian Tismer's full comments there, which were cut somewhat. In particular, all of these interviewees had some interesting remarks to make about the relation between the CPython, Stackless and JPython implementations, and whether insurmountable differences exist between them (and whether such differences matter). Some of this material is a bit more technical, but feel free to read further at the link.
Mertz: Exactly what is JPython?
Warsaw: My standard marketing-speak reads: "JPython is a 100% Pure Java implementation of the Python programming language. It allows users to compile Python source code to Java byte codes, and run the resulting bytecodes on any Java Virtual Machine. It is a very seamless and smooth integration with Java: from Python you have complete access to all Java libraries, can build applets, can integrate with Java beans, and can subclass Java classes in Python and vice versa. Like Python, and unlike Java, JPython can also be used interactively: just type some JPython code at the prompt and see the results immediately."
Warsaw: In simple terms, it allows the Java programmer to script any Java code she wants. This translates to a 2-10 times fewer lines of code in JPython than in Java. Because Python is a dynamically typed language, you can develop applications much faster, with many fewer bugs, and end up with a much more flexible program.
Mertz: What were the reasons for developing JPython in the first place? What was wrong with the original CPython that required another version?
Warsaw: I should point out here that JPython was invented by Jim Hugunin, who is now working for Xerox PARC's Aspect Oriented Programming project. Knowing Jim, I think his primary reason for creating JPython was the pure challenge. At the time, many people in the Python world just didn't think it could be done; Guido himself was one of the skeptics. Jim proved them wrong!
Warsaw: So why continue to develop JPython now that the challenge has been met? Because it's the most valuable Java tool that most Java programmers don't know about yet!
Warsaw: JPython isn't a competitor to Java, it's the perfect complement to it. Java is a statically typed, compiled language. This ensures type-safety of libraries and faster execution speeds. Although it is bytecode interpreted, most people view Java through the traditional write-compile-run-edit programming cycle. Of course, Java leverages a huge segment of the software world, so there are a lot of resources available to the Java programmer.
Warsaw: But the same static typing and traditional programming cycle are what increases the cost of Java application development in terms of human resources. And here, Python absolutely excels. Because Python is such a simple and small language, it's very easily to learn (many experienced programmers can learn enough Python to be productive in about a day). And Python was designed with the observation that code is read many times more than it is written, so Python source code is easy to share in a large team project.
Warsaw: More importantly, Python is a very high-level dynamically typed language. What this translates to is the savings in amount of code needed to perform a task, as I alluded to above. With Python, because I can write many fewer lines of code, I can write them faster and have fewer bugs. This is wonderful for rapid application development.
Warsaw: Python also provides an interactive interpreter. This means that you can sit at the interpreter prompt, import Java code, create Java class instances, make method calls, etc., all interactively. This is a wonderful tool for training programmers on the use of corporate Java libraries, or for experimenting with new Java APIs.
Warsaw: You also asked what's wrong with the original CPython? Well, nothing! IMO, all programmers should have both CPython and JPython in their arsenals :).
Mertz: What strengths or advantages does JPython have over CPython?
Bock: JPython gives complete access to its underlaying implementation language. In most (probably all) C-based script languages, a C function must be wrapped in a thin layer of code that serves to expose the C function to the script language. Fine tools like SWIG exists to automate the creation of this wrapper code. JPython requires no such wrapper. All Java code ever written is directly available for use from JPython. The integration goes both ways. Classes and instances defined in JPython can be passed to Java code as if they were ordinary Java classes and instances (which is exactly what they are).
Bock: The embedding/extending API is very close to the way it is exposed to Python. It makes access to JPython objects from within an application or module quite elegant. This beauty comes in part from the fact that JPython and Java are both OO languages. Jim took great advantage of this.
Warsaw: What CPython lacks is access to the vast quantity of Java code out in the world. If there are Java libraries you need to use, JPython is the answer. Conversely of course, JPython doesn't have easy access to any existing C libraries out in the world. Finn has done work integrating things like Tkinter and a posix module through JNI, but those will always be non-standard in JPython because we want to retain the 100% Pure Java certification.
Mertz: Similarly, what weaknesses or disadvantages does JPython have?
Bock: JPython only gives access to Java code. Not to any of the existing C modules. So every Python module implemented in C must be re-implented in Java. And CPython has quite a lot of modules.
Bock: Also, there is almost no documentation to the embedding/extending API other than the source code.
Mertz: Since JPython combines Java and Python, in a certain sense, what strength and advantages does JPython have over Java? Likewise, weakness and disadvantages?
Warsaw: I think these have been covered above. I'll just briefly mention performance issues with JPython. Since JPython implements Python's dynamic semantics, there is a fairly extensive run-time that comes with JPython. This can have a performance impact on some applications. Standard Java optimizations such as just-in-time compilers and Hotspot technology can mitigate those considerably (e.g. benchmarks 8 months ago showed that with a JIT-enabled JVM, JPython 1.1 could approach and sometimes surpass CPython 1.5.2 speeds). We'll be updating those benchmark results, and concentrating on performance issues after we roll out JPython's successor (more on that below).
Warsaw: In analogy with CPython, you can always rewrite performance critical sections of your application in Java.
Mertz: How widely used do you think JPython is? Are there particular industries or types of problems that are a particularly good match for JPython?
Warsaw: I think it's becoming more and more widely used. The companies that are using it find that it's a technology critical to their success. JPython is valuable to them for all kinds of tasks, from providing an approachable scripting environment to their end users to making it easy to create testing frameworks for their Java libraries and applications. JPython's biggest disadvantage at the moment is that it needs more publicity. I hope this article will help in that department!
Mertz: Do you feel JPython is an attempt to keep up with CPython? Or are they coequal implementations?
Bock: The fact is that JPython is trying to catch up. Almost all new features are added to CPython first. (Well, JPython did have string method before CPython did). JPython has a disadvantage here because CPython has 15 times as many core developers as JPython does. But even so, a JPython version exists with almost all the new features in CPython2.0.
Bock: They are equal. But in the real world one is a little more equal that the other.
Warsaw: I firmly believe that at the language level, JPython and CPython ought to be completely compatible. Where this is impossible, Guido will decide whether the differences are implementation dependent, or whether one or the other implementations are "buggy". I would eventually like to see CPython and JPython become coequal, with JPython pushing CPython development in certain directions as much as CPython pushes JPython.
Warsaw: One current example of this is in Unicode support
i.e. JPython is already all-unicode. Another example is the types/class dichotomy. In CPython, you have built in types like strings, dictionaries, lists, and numbers. You also have classes and instances. The built in types can't be inherited from, and to add more confusion, an instance has both a type and a class. It may be easier to fix this rift in JPython first because of its object-oriented implementation language.
Mertz: What, if any, significant incompatibilities exist between JPython and CPython? How easy am I likely to find moving application code between the two implementations? What are the major gotchas?
Warsaw: There are numerous small differences in the way some things work. These are outlined in the JPython documentation. Again, some are classified as acceptable differences given the language definition, and some point out places where one or the other implementation ought to be fixed. Most are quite minor.
Bock: Some modules have/can not be implemented in JPython. Some modules can only be implemented as JNI modules and as such may not be useful in the deployment environment.
Bock: Tellingly enough, the problems I encountered when porting my own script and programs as well as IDLE, PySol and the PMW toolkit was not the random reclaiming of the garbage collection or the missing _del_ method. It was minor stuff that no one else had encounter before
i.e. in CPython behavior.
Warsaw: The next version of JPython will be compatible with the Python 2.0 language definition, so the biggest gotchas will be in the libraries. Any of the standard library modules from the CPython distribution that are written in pure Python should be portable. C extension modules will not be, unless they are specifically integrated through a JNI bridge, or re-implemented in Java. And any JPython application that extensively uses Java APIs will have a hard time porting back to CPython.
Warsaw: On the other hand, there is a lot of common functionality in the libraries of the two systems. With sufficient foresight, compatibility layers can be built into your application.
Mertz: Any thoughts on future directions for JPython? Anything new and different expected down the pipeline?
Warsaw: In order to ensure its continued existance and development, and in accordance with CNRI's JPython 1.1.x license, we have created JPython's successor, which we call "Jython", based on the public JPython 1.1 release. We've moved the entire development process to SourceForge and will manage it using the same kind of open process that is working so well for CPython. Finn and I are obviously intimately involved in Jython's future development, and Jython will be released with the CPython 2.0 license, which has been OSI approved. This is as close to an "official" fork as you're going to get, so the current JPython community should be confident that Jython won't ever go away, and I hope they will eventually migrate over to Jython.
Warsaw: Right now the code should be considered in alpha phase, but Finn and I will be working on several technical milestones for the Jython 2.0 release. Jython already contains Finn's errata, and CPython 2.0 features such as augmented assignments and extended print (with list comprehensions coming soon). We've integrated the free Apache Jakarta OROMatcher code, thus eliminating the need for dual licensing, and we've fixed lots of bugs, with many more fixes coming. I don't know when the first alpha release of Jython 2.0 will happen, but all the code is currently available in the SourceForge CVS tree. Please visit http://sourceforge.net/projects/jython for more details.
Development home for Python for .NET (still called Python.NET at that site):
Comments by Mercury developers on just what the .NET platform is, and Microsoft's financial and legal relationship to developers of "little languages:"
Extra interview comments:
David Mertz writes many apocopetic articles. David may be reached at email@example.com; his life pored over at http://gnosis.cx/publish/. Suggestions and recommendations on this, past, or future, columns are welcomed.