On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:41:48 +0100 Sturla Molden <sturla@molden.no> wrote:
Den 13.02.2012 01:13, skrev Matt Joiner:
This attitude is exemplary of the status quo in Python on threads: Pretend they don't exist or you'll get hurt. It's more that status quo on threads anywhere.
Not (quite) true. There are a few fringe languages that have embraced threading and been built (or worked over) from the ground up to work well with it. I haven't seen any let you mix multiprocessing and threading safely, though, so the attitude there is "pretend fork doesn't exist or you'll get hurt." These are the places where I've seen safe (as in, I trusted them as much as I'd have trusted a version written using processes) non-trivial (as in, they were complex enough that if they'd been written in a mainstream language like Python, I wouldn't have trusted them) threaded applications. I strongly believe we need better concurrency solutions in Python. I'm not convinced that threading is best general solution, because threading is like the GIL: a kludge that solves the problem by fixing *everything*, whether it needs it or not, and at very high cost. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/ Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org