Python's biggest compromises
mwh at python.net
Fri Aug 1 13:40:05 CEST 2003
hanzspam at yahoo.com.au (Hannu Kankaanpää) writes:
> Worst of both indeed. Maybe the decision to choose reference
> counting was driven by speed considerations.
Ease of implementation, portability and playing nicely with C
extensions are more likely candidates, IMO.
> That might've been reasonable back in early 90's, but GC techniques
> have evolved from those days and so GC would be a superior technique
Reference counting *is* a form of garbage collection.
Saying "Ref. counting sucks, let's use GC instead" is a statement near
as dammit to meaningless.
Given the desires above, I really cannot think of a clearly better GC
strategy for Python that the one currently employed. AFAICS, the
current scheme's biggest drawback is its memory overhead, followed by
the cache-trashing tendencies of decrefs.
What would you use instead?
After a heavy night I travelled on, my face toward home - the comma
being by no means guaranteed. -- paraphrased from cam.misc
More information about the Python-list