From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3aaafc130903031508v5e4b3d96n2b53677049e086f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <138575260903030352s623807d7p5a3075b1f7a591f6@mail.gmail.com> <3e1162e60903030719v141b41e9ma5fd98c73d8b0e7c@mail.gmail.com> <1236103870.4929.101.camel@goose.sun.com> <3aaafc130903031508v5e4b3d96n2b53677049e086f6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:15:11 +0100 Message-ID: <5d375e920903031515x7b25dc5hd1ced6d098bd02d0@mail.gmail.com> From: Uriel To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] threads vs forks Topicbox-Message-UUID: ada21e50-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 You are off. It is doubtful that the GIL will ever be removed. But that really isn't the issue, the issue is the lack of a decent concurrency model, like the one provided by Stackless. But apparently one of the things stackless allows is evil recursive programming, which Guido considers 'confusing' and wont allow in mainline python (I think another reason is that porting it to jython and .not would be hard, but I'm not familiar with the details). uriel On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:08 AM, J.R. Mauro wrote: > 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 y= our 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. =C2=A0It se= rves >>> 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. >> >> >> > >