On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 09:47, Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: > Starting a new process is cheap. On my machine, starting a new Python > process takes under 1ms and uses a few Mbytes.
Is that on Windows or Unix? Traditionally, process creation has been costly on Windows, which is why threads, and in-process solutions in general, tend to be more common on that platform. I haven't done experiments recently, but I do tend to avoid multiprocess-type solutions on Windows "just in case". I know that evaluating a new feature based on unsubstantiated assumptions informed by "it used to be like this" is ill-advised, but so is assuming that everything will be OK based on experience on a single platform :-) Personally, I'm in favour of multiple interpreter support mostly for the same reasons as Petr (easy embedding, in the style of Lua). Exposing interpreters to Python, and per-interpreter GILs, strike me as really interesting areas for experimentation, but I'm reserving final judgement on the practical benefits until we have working code and some practical experience. The incremental costs for those are low, though, as the bulk of the work is actually needed for the "easy embedding" use case. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ZSNO3WRBWLE76W7K4CQSIEWPQIN5AJDG/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
