Maric Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le mercredi 14 février 2007 05:49, Paul Rubin a écrit : > > Basically Python applications are usually not too CPU-intensive; there > > are some ways you can get parallelism with reasonable extra effort; > Basically, while not CPU intensive, application server needs to get > benefit of all resources of the hardware.
But this is impossible--if the application is not CPU intensive, by definition it leaves a lot of the available CPU cycles unused. > When a customer comes with his new beautiful dual-core server and > get a basic plone install up and running, he will immediately > compare it to J2EE and wonder why he should pay a consultant to make > it work properly. At this time, it 's not easy to explain him that > python is not flawed compared to Java, and that he will not regret > his choice in the future. First impression may be decisive. That is true, parallelism is an area where Java is ahead of us. > The historical explanation should be inefficient here, I'm > afraid. What about the argument that said that multi threading is > not so good for parallelism ? Is it strong enough ? It's not much good for parallelism in the typical application that spends most of its time blocked waiting for I/O. That is many applications. It might even even be most applications. But there are still such things as CPU-intensive applications which can benefit from parallelism, and Python has a weak spot there. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
