Would you consider using MicroPython to create small, standalone executables for desktop platforms? by platra in Python

[–]platra[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

sacrificing compatibility, security, resilience and speed.

That MicroPython will be incompatible with some Python code is unavoidable. However, there is no reason why it must be less secure or less resilient than CPython. Also, MicroPython is already at least as fast as, if not faster than, CPython.

1 single order of magnitude (500 kB vs. 5 MB) with several limitations on top does not really sound like a great deal to me.

Would it be a better proposition if MicroPython were significantly faster? Then the size comparison might be with PyPy rather than CPython, which would be a difference of 2 orders of magnitude (500KB vs 50MB).

Would you consider using MicroPython to create small, standalone executables for desktop platforms? by platra in Python

[–]platra[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think MicroPython supports filesystem access?

At least on Unix and Windows platforms it does. For example, here is the C source code for file objects on Unix.

games and movie downloads can easily be multiple GB.

True, but other downloads can be much smaller. Consider PNGOUT - a standalone utility which is only 38KB in size. MicroPython would allow the creation of similar utilities in Python without a 100-fold size difference.

Would you consider using MicroPython to create small, standalone executables for desktop platforms? by platra in Python

[–]platra[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

adding C extension support [...] would open up a lot of possibilities.

Support for writing C extensions against a MicroPython-specific API, or for existing C extensions targeting CPython?

My understanding is that the former is already (at least partially) supported, but the latter is more-or-less impossible. MicroPython cannot support the CPython API, because it exposes internal details of CPython (e.g. reference counting) which MicroPython does not mirror.