Michael Sparks wrote: >Jeremy Jones wrote: > > <snip>
> > >>And maybe >>Steve's magical thinking programming language will have a ton of merit. >> >> > >I see no reason to use such derisory tones, though I'm sure you didn't mean >it that way. (I can see you mean it as extreme skepticism though :-) > > None of the above, really. I thought it was a really great idea and worthy of pursuit. In my response back to Steve, the most skeptical thing I said was that I think it would be insanely difficult to implement. Maybe it wouldn't be as hard as I think. And according to a follow-up by Steve, it probably wouldn't. <snip> >>I would almost bet money that the majority of code would >>not be helped by that at all. >> >> > >Are you so sure? I suspect this is due to you being used to writing code >that is designed for a single CPU system. > Not really. I've got a couple of projects in work that would benefit tremendously from the GIL being lifted. And one of them is actually evolving into a funny little hack that will allow easy persistent message passing between processes (on the same system) without having to mess around with networking. I'm betting this is the case just because of reading this list, the tutor list, and interaction with other Python programmers. <snip> >That's my point too. I don't think our opinions really diverge that far :) > > We don't. Again (as we have both stated), as systems find themselves with more and more CPUs onboard, it becomes more and more absurd to have to do little hacks like what I allude to above. If Python wants to maintain its position in the pantheon of programming languages, it really needs to 1) find a good clean way to utilize muti-CPU machines and 2) come up with a simple, consistent, Pythonic concurrency paradigm. >Best Regards, > > >Michael. > > > Good discussion. JMJ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
