Most people will tell you that dynamic linking is an unalloyed good, orat least that any effects on performance are small (for simple programsthat don't cascade to a huge set of shared libraries). This isn'tnecessarily so.

A long time ago, back when dynamic linking was new and people weresuspicious of it, I conducted some timings of how dynamic linkingaffected the speed of fork() . To my surprise, the impact wassignificant, and on the hardware of the day it was

Originally, shared libraries and dynamic linking was sold as the way tomake (newly) bloated libraries tolerable: you'd only have one copy ofthe library on disk and in memory, no matter how many Motif applicationsyou had running. (Motif in specific and GUI libraries were really theoriginal poster boys for shared libraries.)

As R. Francis Smith notes in his comment on my previous entry , these reasons are not entirely relevant any more.Disk space is cheap, and (although I haven't

Possibly like a lot of other people, I have a 'thread pool' Pythonmodule for doing decoupled asynchronous queries of things. The basic interface looks like this:

wp = WorkPool(HOWMANY)for w in what:  wp.enqueue(wrap_up(w))wp.waitDone()res = wp.getanswers()

The important operation is .enqueue( ) , which queues up to be called in a worker thread; its return value is saved, tobe

Menu

• Home
• List View
• Feed
• Category
  TechNewsPhotographyBlog

---

• Accounts
  Login