On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:59:56 -0700 Mike Meyer firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Nick Coghlan email@example.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Mike Meyer firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
The one glaring exception is in concurrent programs. While the tools python has for dealing with such are ok, there isn't anything to warn you when you fail to use those tools and should be.
This will basically run into the same problem that free-threading-in-CPython concepts do - the fine grained checks you need to implement it will kill your single-threaded performance.
These argument seems familiar. Oh, right, it's the "lack of performance will kill you." That was given as the reason that all of the following were unacceptable:
Agreed, but killing performance by double digits in a new release is generally considered quite ugly by users.
Also, I'm not convinced that such approaches really bring anything. My opinion is that good multi-threaded programming is achieved through careful abstraction and separation of concerns, rather than advanced language idioms.