"km" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> True, since smartness is a comparison, my friends who have chosen java > over python for considerations of a true threading support in a > language are smarter, which makes me a dumbo ! :-) No, but I think you making unwise assumptions about performance. You have to ask yourself: is Amdahl's law really hurting me? In some situations Python could no doubt benefit from fine grained locking. However, it's likely that scientific programming is not typically one of them, because most of the heavy lifting is done in C or C++ extensions which can run in parallel if they release the GIL. Or you are going to use a compute farm, and fork as many worker processes as you have cores. You might find these slides from SciPy 2004 interesting: http://datamining.anu.edu.au/~ole/pypar/py4cfd.pdf -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
