On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 9/17/05, John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...snip...]
[guido] > If my hunch is right, I expect that instead of writing massively > parallel applications, we will continue to write single-threaded > applications that are tied together at the process level rather than > at the thread level. I tend to agree. [...] > > I realize that not all algorithms (nor all computational problems) scale > > well to MP hardware. Is it feasible to usefully compile both MP and a UP > > binaries from one Python source code base? > > That's an understatement. I expect that *most* problems (even most > problems that we will be programming 10-20 years from now) get little > benefit out of MP. Perhaps, but I suspect we'll also get better at thinking up multiprocessor algorithms when better motivated by lack of exponential uniprocessor speed increases. <ducks, fearing barrage of theorems...> [...] > > Of course, it still takes a (anti-)hero to step forward and do the work... > > Be my guest. Prove me wrong. Talk is cheap; instead of arguing my > points (all of which can be argued ad infinitum), come back when > you've got a working GIL-free Python. Doesn't have to be CPython-based > -- C# would be fine too. I don't actively want a GIL-free Python. I was just making some arguments in favour of GIL-removal that I hadn't seen made on a public list before. (In particular, removal now, since now is a special time.) John _______________________________________________ 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
