does python have useless destructors?

[Isaac To]

>>>>> "Humpty" == Humpty Dumpty <oliver.schoenborn at utoronto.ca> writes:

    Humpty> I have been hearing a lot of reference to Jython. This is yet
    Humpty> another example how coupling languages can stifle their
    Humpty> progress: C++ is stifled by its need for compatilibity with C,
    Humpty> now clearly Python is becoming stifled by a need for
    Humpty> compatibility with Jython.

Jython is not a separate language.  It is just our favourite Python
language, running under the Java virtual machine.  Perhaps it is "stifling"
the development of the Python language, but if it is, it is because we
explicitly *don't* want to introduce language dependency (i.e., don't depend
on C-Python implementation) rather than that we want to depend on a certain
language.  Different people will have different idea about whether this is a
good thing.  For me, I'd say that I prefer finding a different solution to
problems arising from the unspecified finalization behaviour, because
specifying the finalization time will more or less remove a use-case of the
Python language completely, and I do think that being able to use Python
within Java and able to use Java objects from Jython code without additional
"glue code" is something that should be dearly treasured.  It is especially
the case because the lack of specification about when finalization happens
is, most of the time, not an issue at all.

Regards,
Isaac.