functioncalls) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] A month ago, Nathan Binkert wrote: > > Wouldn't it be nicer to have a facility that let you send messages > > between processes and manage concurrency properly instead? You'll > > need > > most of this anyway to do multithreading sanely, and the benefit to > > the > > multiple process model is that you can scale to multiple machines, not > > just processors. For brokering data between processes on the same > > machine, you can use mapped memory if you can't afford to copy it > > around, which gives you basically all the benefits of threads with > > fewer pitfalls. > > I don't think this is an answered problem. There are plenty of > researchers on both sides of this fence. It is not been proven at all > that threads are a bad model. > > http://capriccio.cs.berkeley.edu/pubs/threads-hotos-2003.pdf or even > http://www.python.org/~jeremy/weblog/030912.html > I want to add: me, too. That is, while all my instincts incline toward message-passing and "bulkier" concurrency which emphasizes clusters more than multiprocessors, what's most certain to me is that we--computing people, academics, all of us together--really don't know yet what the right answers are.
*My* personal desire: Python as a healthy industrial-strength language strong enough to support such radical experiments as Stackless, PyPy, a sophisticated multithreader, and so on. It has been; I expect it will be. Cameron Laird http://www.phaseit.net Phaseit, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 281 996 8546 FAX _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
