Parallel processing

Josiah Carlson jcarlson at
Thu Nov 18 04:29:50 CET 2004

jhujsak at (Jon) wrote:
> Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at> wrote in message news:<mailman.6501.1100717187.5135.python-list at>...
> > There are various other reasons why Python is not as parallelizable as
> > you would think.  Among them is the semantics of scoping, and whether
> > there is shared or unshared scope among the processors/nodes.  If shared,
> > then any operation that could change scopes would need to be distributed
> > (ick), or if unshared, then you are basically looking at an
> > automatically distributed tuplespace (LINDA).  It gets even uglier with
> > certain kinds of generators.
> > 
> > Regardless of which one is the case, heavy modifications to Python would
> > necessarily need to be done in order to make them happen.
> > 
> > 
> >  - Josiah
> Even considering the above caveats, one can still employ Python based
> interpretive layers such as pyMPI over quite solid parallel computing
> tools such as MPI. See

Indeed.  I wrote the equivalent of pyMPI in the spring of 2002 for an
undergraduate senior project.  It was never a matter of "can
parallelization be done", it was a matter of "can loops be automatically

 - Josiah

More information about the Python-list mailing list