On Jun 5, 2:16 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- cybersource.com.au> wrote: > Neither Python, nor Javascript (as far as I know -- I welcome > corrections) do static linking.
for the command-line versions of javascript such as spidermonkey, i believe that a keyword/function is dropped into the global namespace - "load", which take one argument (a filename). in browsers, it's much more waffly: anything that is tagged as "script language='javascript'" gets executed in a global namespace (into which two strategically critical global variables have been dropped: "window" and "document", which is really the only "real" clue that you have that this is javascript in a web browser engine, not javascript at a command-line). so, if the DOM happens to ever get modified (typically using AJAX), such that an additional node with a tag of "script" and an attribute "language='javascript'" happens to get added, the browser engine _happens_ to notice and _happens_ to execute the resultant newly-added javascript. this well-known but horribly archaic technique is about as close to dynamic module loading that you're ever likely to get in web browsers. everything else is "static", so to speak, and _everything_ operates in one monster global namespace (on a per-page basis). ... but i digress :) > Python modules are, conceptually speaking, like DLLs. They are loaded at > runtime, not at compile time. This has many advantages over static > linking, but some disadvantages as well. thank you, steve - i believe this is the crux of the matter (which terry's analogy expanded on). much appreciated the replies. l. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
