[Python-ideas] Python 3000 TIOBE -3%
mwm at mired.org
Mon Feb 13 01:53:16 CET 2012
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:41:48 +0100
Sturla Molden <sturla at 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 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
More information about the Python-ideas