m1abrams;326500 Wrote: > Ok arguing semantics here but curious as to what you see wrong with > Perl's memory management? It is simple mind you but works fairly well > biggest weakness I know of is circular reference causing a memory leak > but those are usually very easy to find. > call me old fashioned, but it's my experience that enforcing a certain level of structure in your memory usage helps a lot not only WRT to memory leaks but also to general memory usage. You never know which code is using how much memory where and if it's still being used or not. You can say you don't have to because it's garbage collected but then you forget that one reference that keeps unused indexes in memory and things like that. It's an issue perl shares with most type-less languages but it's still an issue. > > Perl's code structure is largely based on C which is why I can read it > so well, they did make some added shortcut syntax however you can be a > diehard and do it the long way if you like. > Problem is they mix different paradigms. C sytax plus a stack handling like logo (ok: lisp) plus that (admittedly very powerful) regex syntax. C++ is also not very good at that but FAR better than perl. > > or does the coder just try to mentally meld with the machine? That's how it feels to me...
but now we are in the middle of that perl rant I didn't want. So I will NOT comment again on perl. I just feel the server could use a little less resources. -- pippin --- see iPeng at penguinlovesmusic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ pippin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13777 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=50698 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
