On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:12:05PM +0100, Michael Hudson wrote: > Martin Blais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 9/18/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 9/17/05, John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > 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. > > > > Some are saying it won't be a matter of choice if we want to get the > > software to run faster (you know, that "MORE MORE MORE!" thing we all > > seem to suffer from): > > People have been saying this for _years_, and it hasn't happened yet. > This time around it's a bit more convincing, but I reserve the right > to remain a touch skeptical.
good! :) > > http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm > > The Free Lunch Is Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software > > Herb Sutter > > March 2005 > > I was disappointed that that article (hey, it was the only issue of > ddj I've ever actually bought! :) didn't consider any concurrency > models other than shared memory threading. Beware. Multi-core and/or multi-threaded cpus are the only thing the high end CPU manufacturers are able to produce today that they can still claim to be "faster." There is a HUGE incentive for them to create demand for their design lest it become irrelevant and they be forced to sell only low-margin commodity single core hardware. This means we'll see a ton of papers and people paid or coerced into suggesting that this is the best thing since time sliced bread. -g _______________________________________________ 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
