From: Mensanator on 12 Apr 2010 16:02
On Apr 12, 3:51 am, alex23 <wuwe...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Mensanator <mensana...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > You think the right thing to do is just quietly work
> > around the problem and sit back and laugh knowing sooner
> > or later someone else will get burned by it?
> Haven't we covered argument from fallacy enough in this group by now?
> Reporting the bug was exactly the right thing to do. Loudly
> pronouncing the impending demise of 3.x because of it was not. Coming
> up with exaggerated parodies of arguments that no one here is actually
> making is even worse.
> > Why do you guys think I'm talking about the language? I'm talking
> > about a particular implementation.
> Probably because _you_ made no such restriction with your blanket
> statement of "3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed". If
> only "under Windows", "probably" and "IDLE" had been injected into it,
> I don't think there would have been a word of disagreement.
Ok. If more people are aware of the issue now, then the hyperbole
has served it's purpose.
From: Mensanator on 12 Apr 2010 16:36
On Apr 12, 11:39 am, Terry Reedy <tjre...(a)udel.edu> wrote:
> On 4/12/2010 1:57 AM, Mensanator wrote:
> > Likewise, I usually don't shut down
> > when I leave work, so I can't allow orphaned processes to accumulate
> > eating up CPU and memory.
> So don't.
I don't. I'm complaining about the need to do that.
> Orphaned processes only accumulate when you use Restart Shell to abandon
> a process stuck in an infinite loop.
Surely, you don't expect me to beleive that Python
has solved the halting problem and knows when its
in an infinite loop? No, Restart Shell is used whenever
the process is going to take longer than one is willing
> I personally very seldom do that.
> Otherwise, the old process dies in a few seconds and the number of
> pythonw processes drops back down from 3 to the normal 2.
You've never written a program that takes more than a
few seconds to execute? Wow.
> As I already said, either roboot or use TaskManager to kill such
Do we need to add something to the documentation to explain
this? Something along the lines of:
"Python simply doesn't work properly. You must keep constant
vigilance on the TaskKanager to watch for orphaned processes,
otherwise they will consume all your CPU cycles and eat up your
Maybe put it in large red letters under the caption
> When I had a unix desktop machine, I routinely used the command
> line equivalents ps (process status) and kill to do the same thing.
No wonder you don't see the problem! You think it's normal!
> Terry Jan Reedy