2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters

Andy O'Meara andy55 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 3 19:11:14 CET 2008


On Oct 30, 11:09 pm, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2:05 am, "Andy O'Meara" <and... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't follow you there.  If you're referring to multiprocessing, our
> > concerns are:
>
> > - Maturity (am I willing to tell my partners and employees that I'm
> > betting our future on a brand-new module that imposes significant
> > restrictions as to how our app operates?)
> > - Liability (am I ready to invest our resources into lots of new
> > python module-specific code to find out that a platform that we want
> > to target isn't supported or has problems?).  Like it not, we're a
> > company and we have to show sensitivity about new or fringe packages
> > that make our codebase less agile -- C/C++ continues to win the day in
> > that department.
>
> I don't follow this...wouldn't both of these concerns be even more
> true for modifying the CPython interpreter to provide the
> functionality you want?


A great point, for sure.  So, basically, the motivation and goal of
this entire thread is to get an understanding for how enthusiastic/
interested the CPython dev community is at the concepts/enhancements
under discussion and for all of us to better understand the root
issues.  So my response is basically that it was my intention to seek
official/sanctioned development (and contribute developer direct
support and compensation).

My hope was that the increasing interest and value associated with
flexible, multi-core/"free-thread" support is at a point where there's
a critical mass of CPython developer interest (as indicated by various
serious projects specifically meant to offer this support).
Unfortunately, based on the posts in this thread, it's becoming clear
that the scale of code changes, design changes, and testing that are
necessary in order to offer this support is just too large unless the
entire community is committed to the cause.

Meanwhile, as many posts in the thread have pointed out, issues such
as free threading and easy/clean/compartmentalized use of python are
of rising importance to app developers shopping for an interpreter to
embed.  So unless/until CPython offers the flexibility some apps
require as an embedded interpreter, we commercial guys are
unfortunately forced to use alternatives to python.  I just think it'd
be huge win for everyone (app developers, the python dev community,
and python proliferation in general) if python made its way into more
commercial and industrial applications (in an embedded capacity).


Andy









More information about the Python-list mailing list