[Tutor] Memory consumption question

[Marc Tompkins]

And here's another reason to use new-style:  I forgot the sauerkraut!  Oh,
the horror!

On Nov 15, 2007 1:42 PM, Marc Tompkins <marc.tompkins at gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought of an analogy I like better than my sign-painting one: ordering
> a sandwich.
> Imagine: you're at the deli, and your waitron asks what you want.
> (Granted, this is a silly example.)
>   "Classic" order: "I'd like a sandwich with two slices of rye bread,
> Russian dressing, corned beef, and Swiss cheese.  Oh, and I'd like that
> grilled."
>   "New-style" order: "Reuben, please."
>
> Now, I speak not of the time and materials required to construct the
> above-mentioned tasty treat - in my analogy, Python is the long-suffering
> waitron, not the cook - but I gotta figure that the second option will take
> less space to write on the check.  Perhaps about 134 bytes' worth.
>
> For some reason I'm hungry now...
>
>
> On Nov 15, 2007 11:22 AM, Kent Johnson <kent37 at tds.net> wrote:
>
> > Marc Tompkins wrote:
> > > I didn't mean that exactly literally - for goodness' sake, this is a
> > > high-level, object-oriented, interpreted language!  We're not writing
> > > machine language here.
> >
> > Yes, I was thinking I should re-word my email, it was worded a bit too
> > strongly...
> >
> > > What I did mean, and will probably still not express as clearly as I'd
> > > like, is that when you create a "classic" class, lots of options
> > remain
> > > unresolved - slots vs. dict comes to mind - and Python needs to
> > reserve
> > > extra space accordingly.   About 134 extra bytes, it would appear.
> >
> > Still not sure I know what you mean. AFAIK old-style classes don't
> > support slots, at least not user-defined slots. I do remember talk of
> > new-style classes and properties allowing a much cleaner implementation
> > of the class mechanisms, and it seems plausible that such generalization
> >
> > would lead to fewer options and streamlining of the class structure, but
> > I don't know enough about the specifics to know if that is right.
> >
> > I poked around a bit in the source to see if I could figure it out but
> > got tired of trying to sift through the header files...
> >
> > Kent
> > >
> > > On Nov 15, 2007 9:32 AM, Kent Johnson <kent37 at tds.net
> > > <mailto:kent37 at tds.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Marc Tompkins wrote:
> > >
> > >      > class B is a "new-style' class, meaning that it inherits from a
> > base,
> > >      > pre-existing class (in this case "object", which is as basic
> > and
> > >     generic
> > >      > as you can get!).  class A has to start from nothing, which is
> > why it
> > >      > consumes more memory yet has less functionality.
> > >
> > >     I don't think it is really accurate to say that an old-style class
> > >     "starts from nothing". It doesn't have an explicit base class but
> > it
> > >     does have all the old-style class machinery which is built in to
> > Python.
> > >
> > >     I don't know why new-style classes are smaller though. My guess is
> > that
> > >     it is because there was an opportunity to streamline the class
> > structure
> > >     based on experience.
> > >
> > >     Kent
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > www.fsrtechnologies.com < http://www.fsrtechnologies.com>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> www.fsrtechnologies.com




-- 
www.fsrtechnologies.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/attachments/20071115/458a383e/attachment-0001.htm