fredrik at pythonware.com
Thu Jun 3 21:36:29 CEST 1999
Paul Boddie <paulb at infercor.no> wrote:
> So, we have established that it can indeed be done, but reaching back into the
> depths of time and pulling out the original proposal - being that Python should
> have its primary (or only) implementation running in the Java environment - we
> can see that regardless of the existence of satisfactory GC schemes, the typical
> Java implementation surely falls short of what many people require.
> Therefore, whilst there may well be a need for more sophisticated GC in Python
> 2.0, we must conclude that the Java environment may not be the appropriate place
> in which such technologies are to be found.
does this mean that there are no cyclic references in this
thread, and it will be garbage collected soon even without
us adding "true" gc to c.l.^h^h^h^hpython?
or are there two different Grahams in this thread, pointing
to each other? ouch.
maybe Gordon could hypnotize Graham?
btw, has anyone looked at
lately? here's a summary:
Python 2.0 (99)
while (a=b()) ... (95)
Re: Is Python dying? (87)
Python IS slow ! [was] Re: Python too slow for re... (67)
Re: Python 2.0 (59)
Defining VCL-like framework for Python (47)
Python too slow for real world (46)
Bytecode optimisation (35)
Concrete Proposal: while ... and while ... (34)
Python vs. VB (32)
Python T-shirt (32)
"?:", "a and b or c" or "iif" (29)
The way to a faster python [was Python IS slow !]... (27)
sure looks like the "community" thinks that changing the
language is more important that using it...
More information about the Python-list