Will Python 3.0 remove the global interpreter lock (GIL)

[TheFlyingDutchman]

On Sep 19, 8:54 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:14:39 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:


>
> > etc. is at best an excuse for laziness.
>
> What are you doing about solving the problem? Apart from standing on the
> side-lines calling out "Get yer lazy behinds movin', yer lazy bums!!!" at
> the people who aren't even convinced there is a problem that needs
> solving?

He's trying to convince the developers that there is a problem. That
is not the same as your strawman argument.

>
> > And more and more often, in the
> > application areas where Python is deployed, it's just plain wrong.  Take
> > web servers: a big site like Google has something like a half million of
> > them.  Even the comparatively wimpy site where I work has a couple
> > thousand.  If each server uses 150 watts of power (plus air
> > conditioning), then if making the software 2x faster lets us shut down
> > 1000 of them,
>
> What on earth makes you think that would be anything more than a
> temporary, VERY temporary, shutdown? My prediction is that the last of
> the machines wouldn't have even been unplugged before management decided
> that running twice as fast, or servicing twice as many people at the same
> speed, is more important than saving on the electricity bill, and they'd
> be plugged back in.
>
Plugging back in 1000 servers would be preferable to buying and
plugging in 2000 new servers which is what would occur if the software
in this example had not been sped up 2x and management had still
desired a 2x speed up in system performance as you suggest.