[Adam Olsen] > I don't like the idea of a conservative GC at all in general, but > Boehm GC seems to have very good quality, and it's easy to use from > the point of view of a C API.
Several thoughts: * An easier C API would significantly benefit the language in terms of more extensions being available and in terms of increased reliability for those extensions. The current refcount scheme results in pervasive refleak bugs and subsequent, interminable bughunts. It adds to code verbosity/complexity and makes it tricky for beginning extension writers to get their first apps done correctly. IOW, I agree that GC without refcounts will make it easier to write good C code. * I doubt the anecdotal comments about Boehm GC with respect to performance. It may be better or it may be worse. While I think the latter is more likely, only an implementation patch will tell the tale. * At my company, we write real-time apps that benefit from the current refcounting scheme. We would have to stick with Py2.x unless Boehm GC can be implemented without periodically killing responsiveness. [Barry Warsaw] > What worries me is the unpredictability of gc vs. refcounting. > For some class of Python applications it's important that when > an object is dereferenced it really goes away right then. > I /like/ reference counting! No doubt that those exist; however, that sort of design is somewhat fragile and bugprone leading to endless sessions to find-out who or what is keeping an object alive. This situation can only get worse when new-style classes become the norm. Also, IIRC, bugs involving __del__ have been one of the more complex, buggy, and dark corners of the language. Statistics incontrovertibly prove that people who habitually avoid __del__ lead happier lives and spend fewer hours in therapy ;-) Raymond _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
