On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I regard "fully pythonic" python data as a subgraph of a > reference-counted object graph. So far as I know, Python has lots of > interesting ways to parse bytestreams into object graphs, but no great > way to read an object graph directly into memory without the overhead of > parsing or to save an subgraph of its object graph directly to a > bytestream. This makes it hard to use pythonic data via shared-memory or > to pull it quickly off of a filesystem.
None of the dynamic languages I am used to can do this - Perl, Python, PHP, Ruby - even with locks or read-only shmem arrangements. Whenever I've used a shmem arrangement in any of them, it involved marshalling/unmarshalling, which of course is a huge perf drag. Which makes me suspect that there's something else that is tricky there -- things in that shmem space do have references to the private mem of the originating process (pointers to the class code perhaps). I understand the PHP and Perl (circa P5.0005) internal memory handling. YMMV. In other words, it's in the way-too-hard-and-brittle basket, barring an execution-engine redesign, that might incorporate some changes. OTOH, ISTR reading that Erlang's odd all-variables-are-constants scheme makes this easier. cheers, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
