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

Bengt Richter bokr at
Tue Aug 6 15:56:49 EDT 2002

On 6 Aug 2002 14:12:36 -0400, aahz at (Aahz) wrote:

>In article <aiov3l$dt5$0 at>, Bengt Richter <bokr at> wrote:
>>My impression is that some apparently think there is a latency problem
>>for some applications.
>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 broken.

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.

If you see no hope for improvement, then bringing up any limitation will seem
like useless criticism, detraction, and distraction, but that's not where
I'm coming from. OTOH I admit to getting interested sometimes in things without
regard to real usefulness other than enjoyment ;-)

Bengt Richter

More information about the Python-list mailing list