On Feb 19, 3:11 pm, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Falcolas <garri...@gmail.com> writes: > > It's a proposition that used to bother me, until I did some actual > > programming of real world problems in Python. I've yet to really find > > a case where the application was slow enough to justify the cost of > > using multiple Python processes. > > Right, that's basically the issue here: the cost of using multiple > Python processes is unnecessarily high. If that cost were lower then > we could more easily use multiple cores to make oru apps faster.
I was actually referring to the time cost of researching or developing a parallel execution algorithm which would be suitable for multiple processes. The system overhead of using the Python multiprocess module is fairly negligible for the systems I work on. > Different languages have different trade-offs. Python's trade-offs > suit us. If they don't suit you, use a language with trade-offs that > do. +1 ~G -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
