20,741
edits
Python in FlightGear: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Garbage Collection
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
=== Garbage Collection === | === Garbage Collection === | ||
{{FGCquote | |||
|1= the issue with scanning for unreachable objects is that it scales with the number of data elements in memory. Even when you aren't touching the data structures, they still affect performance. Reference counting itself doesn't guarantee real-time behavior, since removing any reference may result in deleting large data structures. But it's much more predictable and can be influence in the code. When certain code doesn't touch anything large, then it isn't affected. There are real-time systems which have successfully integrated a Python engine because of this. Though it doesn't guarantee hard real-time "by the book", it still works very, very well, and only require few limitations (i.e. you have to avoid cyclic data structures, or accept that they are leaking). | |||
|2= {{cite web | |||
| url = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/27262161/ | |||
| title = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] Stuttering at 1 Hz rate</nowiki> | |||
| author = <nowiki>ThorstenB</nowiki> | |||
| date = Mar 26th, 2011 | |||
| added = Mar 26th, 2011 | |||
| script_version = 0.23 | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
{{FGCquote | {{FGCquote | ||
|1= Does anybody of you know how garbage collectors of Java and Python and other GPL'd script engines compare to each other? (atomic step character) | |1= Does anybody of you know how garbage collectors of Java and Python and other GPL'd script engines compare to each other? (atomic step character) | ||