On 05 Sep 2005 23:31:13 -0700, Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote: >Steve Jorgensen <nospam at nospam.nospam> writes: >> In this case, it woiuld just be keeping a list of dirty hash tables, and >> having a process that pulls the next one from the queue, and cleans it. > >If typical Python programs spend so enough time updating hash tables >for a hack like this to be of any benefit, Python itself is seriously >mis-designed and needs to be fixed. I dunno - you might be right, and you might be wrong. I was just pointing out that there may be standard operations that can be made lazy and benefit from background tasks to complete before they are needed for use by the Python code. Given that Python is highly dependent upon dictionaries, I would think a lot of the processor time used by a Python app is spent in updating hash tables. That guess could be right or wrong, bus assuming it's right, is that a design flaw? That's just a language spending most of its time handling the constructs it is based on. What else would it do?
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