In article <[email protected]>, Paul Rubin <http://[email protected]> wrote: >[email protected] (Aahz) writes: >> >> CPython's "primitive" storage management has a lot to do with the >> simplicity of interfacing CPython with external libraries. Any solution >> that proposes to get rid of the GIL needs to address that. > >This, I don't understand. Other languages like Lisp and Java and >Haskell have foreign function interfaces that easier to program than >Python's, -and- they don't use reference counts. There's usually some >primitive to protect objects from garbage collection while the foreign >function is using them, etc. The Java Native Interface (JNI) and the >Haskell FFI are pretty well documented. The Emacs Lisp system is not >too hard to figure out from examining the source code, etc.
This is the first time I've heard about Java being easier to interface than Python. I don't work at that level myself, so I rely on the informed opinions of other people; can you provide a summary of what makes those FFIs easier than Python? -- Aahz ([email protected]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
