[Chicago] Kickstarter Fund to get rid of the GIL

Jeremy McMillan jeremy.mcmillan at gmail.com
Sun Jul 24 05:39:27 CEST 2011

+1 IPC

For reference, there is the DragonflyBSD project, and Matt Dillon has done not only some fine concurrency design work, but he's also written some pretty good documentation around that design.

It only has to work better than multiprocessing, and you should be thinking about generators and coroutines for concurrency anyways, so why not just turn mutables' get/set operations into something similar?

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:54 PM, Brian Ray <brianhray at gmail.com> wrote:

> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:54:29 -0500
> From: Brian Ray <brianhray at gmail.com>
> To: The Chicago Python Users Group <chicago at python.org>
> Subject: Re: [Chicago] Kickstarter Fund to get rid of the GIL
> Message-ID:
> 	<CANKg38sNjA3bWvkyygvQVRqdtOjt0CEajAfd_nNd+wT6P052wA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "high performance just create multi processes that message" very rarely have
>> I heard IPC and high performance in the same sentence.
>> Alex
> Can you elaborate?  Taking full advantage of multiple processors could
> increase performance, no?  I believe IPC was Guido's suggestion.
> IPC of some sort has already been pretty well established approach.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20110723/31face0c/attachment.html>

More information about the Chicago mailing list