[Python-ideas] Python 3000 TIOBE -3%
anacrolix at gmail.com
Mon Feb 13 01:13:36 CET 2012
This attitude is exemplary of the status quo in Python on threads: Pretend
they don't exist or you'll get hurt.
On Feb 13, 2012 6:45 AM, "Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote:
> [Replies have been sent to concurrency-sig at python.org]
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:14:51 +0100
> Sturla Molden <sturla at molden.no> wrote:
> > Den 12.02.2012 21:56, skrev Mike Meyer:
> > > While it's a throwback to the 60s, it would make using threads and
> > > processes more convenient, but I don't need it. Why don't you submit a
> > > patch?
> > I suppose the Windows implementation would do this on Linux as well? At
> > least it uses the subprocess module to spawn a new process. Though I am
> > not sure how subprocess interacts with threads in Linux.
> subprocess and threads interact *really* badly on Unix
> systems. Python is missing the tools needed to deal with this
> situation properly. See http://bugs.python.org/issue6923.
> Just another of the minor reasons not to use threads in Python.
> Mike Meyer <mwm at 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
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-ideas