Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> writes: >> "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). Well, couldn't there be a mechanism which allows to switch easily between builtin/external? >> > 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). I tried to be funny but obviously failed ;-) Although it smells a little bit like DLL hell. Thomas
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