Carl Banks wrote: > On Feb 22, 12:23 am, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Carl Banks wrote: >>> On Feb 21, 7:17 pm, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Carl Banks wrote: >>>>> On Feb 21, 1:22 pm, Nicola Musatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> There are other downsides to garbage collection, as the fact that it >>>>>> makes it harder to implement the Resource Acquisition Is >>>>>> Initialization idiom, due to the lack of deterministic destruction. >>>>> That's not a downside: it's at least a wash. >>>>> In C++ you manage memory and the language manages resourcewithout bringing >> anything of particular value to the table.s. In >>>>> Python you manage resources and the language manages memory. >>>>> RAII is merely one way of minimizing complexity. Garbage collection >>>>> is another way. >>>> If you've already got a generic, language-supported way to manage >>>> resources (like RAII with deterministic destruction), then why bother >>>> with garbage collection? >>> Because now you have to manage memory? Did you read my post? You >>> have to manage one thing or the other. >> Yes, I read your post. You seem to be saying there's some kind of >> trade-off between automatic management of dynamically allocated memory, >> and automated management of other kinds of resources. I don't >> understand why you believe that, so I asked. >> >> If you have proper RAII and deterministic destruction, the management is >> of resources is consistent, and mostly automated. > > If you have garbage collection, the management of memory is > consistent, and mostly automated. > >> Managing memory is >> just not that difficult, > > Managing resources is just not that difficult, > >> especially if the vast majority of objects are >> allocated on the stack or in static memory. > > Especially if the there are fewer resources to manage than there would > have been heap objects.... > >> A special language feature >> for managing dynamically allocated memory robs the programmer of a >> reliable way to clean up resources automatically, > > A special language feature more managing dynamically allocated robs > the programmer of a reliable way to free memory automatically, > >> without bringing >> anything of particular value to the table. > > without bringing > anything of particular value to the table. > > It cuts both ways, chief. > > You like managing your own memory, be my guest. But please don't > imply that you're putting forth less effort because of it. You're > just putting forth different effort.
I disagree with you completely. Your points don't make any sense to me at all. I believe I am putting forth less effort by having a generic resource-management infrastructure, rather than a memory-specific language feature -- that's not just an implication, it's my honest belief. But I guess we'll agree to disagree. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
