bytecode non-backcompatibility

[Terry Reedy]

"Maurice LING" <mauriceling at acm.org> wrote in message 
news:d4mrdf$jrc$1 at domitilla.aioe.org...
> From a technical perspective, I can accept that .pyc files are private 
> and temporary. To a certain extend, it does helps development cycle. 
> Every time I amend my source codes, I just run it without having to 
> consider or needing to re-compile the source files.

>From a user perspective, source code is the run-time program.

> The idea of having to release the program or library as source files does 
> ring alarms in many executives in corporate world.

I understand that people use Python while resisting its purpose and design. 
But I also understand that it is *their* responsibilty to hide their code, 
which may possibly mean not using Python, or which may mean developing 
proprietary methods to translate to something designed to *not* be 
readable.  For all we know, some of the developers have been paid to do 
exactly that -- and not talk about it.

Python is *designed* for human readability.  That is one of its big 
features!  The same also seems somewhat true for CPython's bytecodes, 
especially when disassembled with the dis module that comes with the 
interpreter.  You even get all the object names included in the code 
object.

Terry J. Reedy