On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 09:57:06AM +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Besides, if you want Python with no GIL so you can run threaded code, why > aren't you using IronPython or Jython?
But this is just another oversimplified argument. In the real world there rather often exist constraints which have nothing to do with what is technically possible, but which make impractical or infeasible what may be technically possible. Python is often a preferred solution because it is often fantastic for rapid implementation and maintainability. The GIL's interference with threaded code performance has, for me at least, on several occasions been... disappointing (perf costs of removing it aside) because it gets in the way of choosing Python for such solutions. Jython and IronPython are simply not feasible options for me, for multiple reasons that have zero to do with their technical suitability. But back to the point of the thread, I think it's ironic that you're basically making the benchmarks' argument: Choose the tool which suits the solution you need. You argue we should use IronPython or Jython when threads are needed, and the Julia benchmarks *imply* (but never actually argue, AFAICT) that if you need a solution which relies on heavy use of function calls, since Python will be slower than Julia, you should therefore choose Julia instead. But that's only a sensible conclusion if all other things be equal, which of course they are not, neither for Julia vs. Python, nor for Python vs. Jython or IronPython (though likely the latter case is slightly closer to being true). -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
