"David LeBlanc" <whisper at oz.net> writes: > What's the cost of mapping the world (all those entry points) at startup? I believe it is measurable. It also adds maintenance costs to have extension modules, both in terms of the build procedure, and in packaging. > 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. When did you last wish to rebuild one of the modules without having a PCBuild directory in the first place? If that ever happened, which module did you wish to rebuild and why? > Any possiblity of new bugs? Not likely. > Are app users/programmers going to have a bloat perception? This is possible; it appears that all readers who, in this thread, have spoken in favour of keeping the status quo have done so because of a bloat perception. > IMO, it contradicts the unix way of smaller, compartmentalized is better. I dislike the usage of shared libraries on Unix, and still hope that the Python build procedure becomes sane again by reducing its usage of shared extension modules, in favour of a single complete binary. > It's not unix we're talking about, but it still makes sense to me, whatever > the OS. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. > On a related side note: has anyone done any investigation to > determine which few percentage of the extensions account for 99% of > the dll loads? Do you have any specific concerns beyond FUD? Regards, Martin
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