jcarlson at uci.edu
Thu Nov 18 04:29:50 CET 2004
jhujsak at neotopica.com (Jon) wrote:
> Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at uci.edu> wrote in message news:<mailman.6501.1100717187.5135.python-list at python.org>...
> > There are various other reasons why Python is not as parallelizable as
> > you would think. Among them is the semantics of scoping, and whether
> > there is shared or unshared scope among the processors/nodes. If shared,
> > then any operation that could change scopes would need to be distributed
> > (ick), or if unshared, then you are basically looking at an
> > automatically distributed tuplespace (LINDA). It gets even uglier with
> > certain kinds of generators.
> > Regardless of which one is the case, heavy modifications to Python would
> > necessarily need to be done in order to make them happen.
> > - Josiah
> Even considering the above caveats, one can still employ Python based
> interpretive layers such as pyMPI over quite solid parallel computing
> tools such as MPI. See http://pympi.sourceforge.net/.
Indeed. I wrote the equivalent of pyMPI in the spring of 2002 for an
undergraduate senior project. It was never a matter of "can
parallelization be done", it was a matter of "can loops be automatically
More information about the Python-list