On 12Jun2020 1008, Paul Moore wrote:
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 :-)
It's still like that, though I'm actively involved in trying to get it
improved. However, it's unlikely at this point to ever get to
equivalence with Unix - Windows just sets up too many features
(security, isolation, etc.) at the process boundary rather than other
parts of the lifecycle.
It's also *incredibly arrogant* to insist that users rewrite their
applications to suit Python, rather than us doing the work to fit their
needs. That's not how being a libraries/runtime developer works. Our
responsibility is to humbly do the work that will benefit our users, not
to find ways to put in the least possible effort and use the rest for
blame-shifting. Some of us do much more talking than listening, and it
does not pass unnoticed.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
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/YYBRXYCIQE4B2NDOP3UT7AYR54DQVZCQ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
