Hi All,
Thank you for your commentaries.
In the meantime, I read up in Python-Dev and came across a post by
Johnatan LaCour which kind of nicely sums up the state of affairs:
"Its really a shame. There seems to be some consensus about
multi-processing, but not a whole lot of interest in making it
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, malv wrote:
> Maybe this is too simplistic, but given two programs, one in Python the
> other in Java or C#. Would this mean that running the latter on a dual
> core processor would significantly increase execution speed, whereas the
> Python program would be running in one
malv wrote:
> Maybe this is too simplistic, but given two programs, one in Python the
> other in Java or C#. Would this mean that running the latter on a dual
> core processor would significantly increase execution speed, whereas
> the Python program would be running in one processor only without a
The short answer is, "maybe". Python will be CPU bound but not I/O
bound. This means you can have multiple threads concurrently
performing I/O. On the other hand, if you have two threads which are
CPU bound, only one will run at a time.
Having said that, there are plenty of ready work arounds.
Thank you Xavier.
Maybe this is too simplistic, but given two programs, one in Python the
other in Java or C#. Would this mean that running the latter on a dual
core processor would significantly increase execution speed, whereas
the Python program would be running in one processor only without any
malv wrote:
> Of course, multiprocessing has been used for many years but this always
> involved a much higher level of sophistication on the part of the
> designers. This point seems to be largely hidden from the public,
> ignorant and semi-ignorant, by the chip manufacturers.
> Will new languages
