On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:03 AM Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-10-02 16:48 GMT+02:00 Christian Heimes <christ...@python.org>: > > That approach could work, but I think that it is the wrong approach. I'd > > rather keep Python optimized for long-running processes and introduce a > > new mode / option to optimize for short-running scripts. > > "Filling caches on demand" is an old pattern. I don't think that we > are doing anything new here. > > If we add an opt-in option, I would prefer to have an option to > explicitly "fill caches", rather than the opposite. > +1 the common case benefits from the laziness. The much less common piece of code that needs to pre-initialize as much as possible to avoid work happening at an inopportune future time (prior to forking, while handling latency sensitive real time requests yet still being written in CPython, etc.) knows its needs and can ask for it. -gps
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
