> "David LeBlanc" <whisper at oz.net> writes: > > > A few things come to mind: > > > > What's the cost of mapping the world (all those entry points) at startup? > > > > You have to rebuild all of the main dll just to do something to one > > component. To me, that's maybe the biggest single issue. [Thomas Heller] > Hm. How often do you hack the C code of the extension modules included > with Python? There's a small but important group of people who rebuild Python from source with different compiler options (perhaps to enable debugging their own extensions). They often don't want to have to bother with downloading external software that they don't use (like bz2 or bsddb). > > Are app users/programmers going to have a bloat perception? How > > many of them really understand that a dll is mapped and not loaded > > at startup? > > > > IMO, it contradicts the unix way of smaller, compartmentalized is better. > > It's not unix we're talking about, but it still makes sense to me, whatever > > the OS. > > Maybe unix solves all this, but on Windows it's called DLL Hell. It's not DLL hell unless there are version issues. I don't think multiple extension modules contribute to that (they aern't in the general Windows DLL search path anyway, only pythonXY.dll is, for the benefit of Mark Hammond's COM support in win32all). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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