Tim Peters wrote:
> [Christian Tismer]
>
>>...
>>I know of many companies (all my Stackless customers, for
>>instance), who would *never* switch to a Python version that
>>needs the GC.
>
>
> What relationship does Stackless have with user code creating cycles among
> Python objects? I don't see any.
I didn't talk about Stackless at all :-)
But the only companies who I know directly
to completely depend on Python happen to
also use Stackless.
> One thing getting overlooked here is how many newer C-level Python objects
> register with GC, due to that so many new features end up creating reference
> cycles. For example, create a new-style class and you've created cycles.
> If you have a customer who disables cyclic GC, they'll have to avoid other
> newer features too, or endure leaks.
Right, that's truely an issue.
I don't think they would care about class leaks,
but for frequently created objects, they would
need extra destructors.
At least CCPgames uses 2.2 already. I will ask
them if they adhered to not using GC, and how.
cheers - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 pager +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4