Is Python a commercial proposition ?

Dan Stromberg drsalists at gmail.com
Mon Jul 30 03:33:01 CEST 2012


On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 7/29/2012 7:12 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote:
> > Python is a glue language much like Perl was 10 years ago. Until the
> > GIL is fixed I doubt anyone will seriously look at Python as an option
> > for large enterprise standalone application development.
> The GIL is neither a bug to be fixed nor an inherent part of the
> language. It is a design choice for CPython. There are reasons the
> CPython devs have no intention of removing the GIL (at least in the near
> future). A recent outline of these reasons (written by one of the
> CPython devs) is here:
>
>
> http://python-notes.boredomandlaziness.org/en/latest/python3/questions_and_answers.html#but-but-surely-fixing-the-gil-is-more-important-than-fixing-unicode


It's a nice document, though it seems to use the phrase "shared  memory" in
a novel (to me) way, and literally says that multiprocessing doesn't use
"shared memory" even though it does (at least in the sense of the phrase
that I'm accustomed to).

I suppose you could call what I usually refer to as "shared memory",
instead "System V shared memory".  It's hidden from the user to a large
extent, but when multiprocessing passes objects from one process to
another, I believe it's doing so via System V shared memory.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20120729/dd8ff67b/attachment.html>


More information about the Python-list mailing list