<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Aug 10, 2011, at 4:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><blockquote type="cite">After implementing the aforementioned step 5, you will find that the performance of everything, including the threaded code, will be quite a bit worse. Frankly, this is probably the most significant obstacle to have any kind of GIL-less Python with reasonable performance.<br></blockquote><br>PyPy would actually make a significantly better basis for this kind of<br>experimentation, since they *don't* use reference counting for their<br>memory management.</div></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Jython may be a better choice. It is all about concurrency. Its dicts are built on top of Java's ConcurrentHashMap for example.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Raymond</div></body></html>