Python threading (was: Re: global interpreter lock not working as it should)

Aahz aahz at
Tue Aug 6 22:47:37 CEST 2002

In article <aip9m1$346$0 at>, Bengt Richter <bokr at> wrote:
>On 6 Aug 2002 14:12:36 -0400, aahz at (Aahz) wrote:
>>The fact that there is a problem does not mean that Python is broken,
>>nor even that it's within Python's domain to fix.  Threading in Python
>>is useful and usable across a wide range of tasks, and presenting the
>>latency problem as an argument for Python being broken does little to
>>incline me to take an interest.
>To my mind, the possibility of improvement does not equate to being
>I certainly did not mean to say Python is "broken" (nor to offend you
>with that implication). We're all enjoying a great thing that is more
>than good enough for a very broad set of applications. That said, I
>don't see any harm in trying to widen the boundaries of applicability
>by discussing where some applications may bump into limitations that
>will be "problems" for them.

Right.  I should have been clearer that I was referring to Armin and
Aahz (aahz at           <*>

Project Vote Smart:

More information about the Python-list mailing list