From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:11:10 -0800 From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" In-reply-to: <3e1162e60903030719v141b41e9ma5fd98c73d8b0e7c@mail.gmail.com> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-id: <1236103870.4929.101.camel@goose.sun.com> References: <138575260903030352s623807d7p5a3075b1f7a591f6@mail.gmail.com> <3e1162e60903030719v141b41e9ma5fd98c73d8b0e7c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] threads vs forks Topicbox-Message-UUID: acff02e2-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 07:19 -0800, David Leimbach wrote: > My knowledge on this subject is about 8 or 9 years old, so check with your local Python guru.... > > > The last I'd heard about Python's threading is that it was cooperative > only, and that you couldn't get real parallelism out of it. It serves > as a means to organize your program in a concurrent manner. > > > In other words no two threads run at the same time in Python, even if > you're on a multi-core system, due to something they call a "Global > Interpreter Lock". I believe GIL is as present in Python nowadays as ever. On a related note: does anybody know any sane interpreted languages with a decent threading model to go along? Stackless python is the only thing that I'm familiar with in that department. Thanks, Roman.