>>>>> Jure Erznožnik <jure.erznoz...@gmail.com> (JE) wrote:
>JE> Digging further, I found this: >JE> >http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/10/does_python_have_a_concurrency.html >JE> Looking up on this info, I found this: >JE> >http://docs.python.org/c-api/init.html#thread-state-and-the-global-interpreter-lock >JE> If this is correct, no amount of threading would ever help in Python >JE> since only one core / CPU could *by design* ever be utilized. Except >JE> for the code that accesses *no* functions / memory at all. It is not the design of the Python language, but of the *CPython* implementation. And yes, it will not benefit from more than one core. You should watch/read this: http://blip.tv/file/2232410 http://www.dabeaz.com/python/GIL.pdf -- Piet van Oostrum <p...@cs.uu.nl> URL: http://pietvanoostrum.com [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] Private email: p...@vanoostrum.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
