It's nice to see Python come out on top for threading.
Posted by Scott Lamb on 2007-06-28 at 12:32.
Hmm, I wouldn't call "better than Perl" validation. "Easier to read the Perl, better threading support than COBOL, more productive than TriMedia VLIW assembler, faster than MUMPS!" We can do better than that...
Posted by Robert on 2007-06-28 at 18:46.
I would not call that validated.
Posted by Titus Brown on 2007-06-29 at 10:58.
I think you guys are underestimating the damage done to Python's rep on account of the GIL. It's not easy to explain why the GIL is such a good idea, and this is an example-in-the-wild of precisely why. --titus
Posted by manuelg on 2007-06-29 at 14:59.
If a threading implementation gives up: * some latency to gain: * throughput * ease of use * simpler implementation * use of C library native OS threads * and of course, correctness is a must That would be a wise thing to do! That is what the GIL does. Gives up some latency, to gain a lot of desirable properties for a threading implementation. I wish the GIL: * wasn't global across different interpreter running in the same process * wasn't the **one** and **only one** mechanism to handle the parts of the CPython interpreter that are not thread safe * didn't need to be invoked so much (the GIL is used for a lot of pointless reference counting bookkeeping for immutable objects shared between threads, like integer objects, objects representing the classes, etc.) But, on the whole, not bad.