From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1236103870.4929.101.camel@goose.sun.com> References: <138575260903030352s623807d7p5a3075b1f7a591f6@mail.gmail.com> <3e1162e60903030719v141b41e9ma5fd98c73d8b0e7c@mail.gmail.com> <1236103870.4929.101.camel@goose.sun.com> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:08:39 -0500 Message-ID: <3aaafc130903031508v5e4b3d96n2b53677049e086f6@mail.gmail.com> From: "J.R. Mauro" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] threads vs forks Topicbox-Message-UUID: ad2e41c4-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Roman V. Shaposhnik wrote: > 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 yo= ur 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. =A0It 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. I thought part of the reason for the "big break" with Python 3000 was to get rid of the GIL and clean that threading mess up. Or am I way off? > > Thanks, > Roman. > > >