2
On Sep 19, 5:08 pm, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
This assumes that comparing versions of 1.5 is still relevant. As far as I
know, his patch has not been maintained to apply against current Python.
This tells me that no one to date
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a better question is, how much faster/slower would Stein's code
be on today's processors, versus CPython being hand-simulated in a giant
virtual machine made of clockwork?
This obviously depends on whether or not the clockwork is orange
On 20 Sep, 00:59, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul it's a pleasure to see that you are not entirely against
complaints.
Well, it seems to me that I'm usually the one making them. ;-)
The very fastest Intel processor of the last 1990's that I found came
out in October 1999 and
TheFlyingDutchman a écrit :
(snip)
I am confused about the benefits/disadvantages of the GIL removal.
Is it correct that the GIL is preventing CPython from having threads?
Is it correct that the only issue with the GIL is the prevention of
being able to do multi-threading?
On 9/19/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:08 pm, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
This is a little confusing because google groups does not show your
original post (not uncommon for them to lose a post in a thread -
On 2007-09-20, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the only point in getting rid of the GIL to allow multi-threaded
applications?
That's the main point.
Can't multiple threads also provide a performance boost versus
multiple processes on a single-core machine?
That depends on the
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's why your comparatively wimpy site preferred to throw extra web
servers at the job of serving webpages rather than investing in smarter,
harder-working programmers to pull the last skerricks of performance out
of the hardware you already had.
On 20 Sep 2007 07:43:18 -0700, Paul Rubin
http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's why your comparatively wimpy site preferred to throw extra web
servers at the job of serving webpages rather than investing in smarter,
harder-working programmers
Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. Python has threads, and they're wrappers around true OS level
system threads. What the GIL does is prevent *Python* code in those
threads from running concurrently.
Well, C libraries can release the GIL if they are written for thread
safety, but as
Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The compute intensive stuff (image rendering and crunching) has
already had most of those skerricks pulled out. It is written in C
and assembler
That means that this part is also unaffected by the GIL.
Right, it was a counterexample against the speed
Paul Rubin http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| funding into PyPy development, since I think I saw something about the
| EU funding being interrupted.
As far as I know, the project was completed and promised funds paid. But I
don't know of any major follow-on
Paul Rubin http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| It does sound like removing the GIL from CPython would have very high
| costs in more than one area. Is my hope that Python will transition
| from CPython to PyPy overoptimistic?
I presume you mean 'will the
Ben Finney a écrit :
(snip)
One common response to that is Processes are expensive on Win32. My
response to that is that if you're programming on Win32 and expecting
the application to scale well, you already have problems that must
first be addressed that are far more fundamental than the
On 2007-09-19, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:09:26 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's
processors versus CPython running on the processors of the
late 1990's?
I think a better question is, how much
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:09:26 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's processors
versus CPython running on the processors of the late 1990's?
I think a better question is, how much faster/slower would Stein's code
be on today's processors,
On Sep 19, 8:51 am, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:09:26 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's processors
versus CPython running on the processors of the late 1990's?
I think a better
On 19 Sep, 03:09, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's
processors versus CPython running on the processors of the late
1990's? And if you decide to answer, please add a true/false response
to this statement - CPython in the
On Sep 19, 3:41 pm, Paul Boddie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Sep, 03:09, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's
processors versus CPython running on the processors of the late
1990's? And if you decide to answer, please
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Since Guido wrote that, there have been put forth more ideas and interest
| and promises of efforts to remove or revise the GIL or do other
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:07:48 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
On Sep 19, 8:51 am, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:09:26 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
How much faster/slower would Greg Stein's code be on today's
processors versus CPython
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:59:59 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
Paul it's a pleasure to see that you are not entirely against
complaints.
I'm not against complaints either, so long as they are well-thought out.
I've made a few of my own over the years, some of which may have been
less
TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The very fastest Intel processor of the last 1990's that I found came
out in October 1999 and had a speed around 783Mhz. Current fastest
processors are something like 3.74 Ghz, with larger caches. Memory is
also faster and larger. It appears that
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:14:39 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
We get cpu speed increases now through parallelism, not mhz. Intel and
AMD both have 4-core cpu's now and Intel has a 16-core chip coming.
Python is at a serious disadvantage compared with other languages if the
other languages keep up
On Sep 19, 8:54 pm, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:14:39 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
etc. is at best an excuse for laziness.
What are you doing about solving the problem? Apart from standing on the
side-lines calling out Get yer lazy
On Sep 19, 5:08 pm, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
This is a little confusing because google groups does not show your
original post (not uncommon for them to lose a post in a thread - but
somehow still reflect the fact that it exists in the
On Sep 2, 5:38 pm, Eduardo O. Padoan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No.http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211430
Ops, I meant:http://www.artima.com/forums/threaded.jsp?forum=106thread=211200
--http://www.advogato.org/person/eopadoan/
Bookmarks:http://del.icio.us/edcrypt
No. We're
TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On Sep 2, 5:38 pm, Eduardo O. Padoan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| No.http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211430
|
| Ops, I
meant:http://www.artima.com/forums/threaded.jsp?forum=106thread=211200
|
|
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 17:21 -0700, llothar wrote:
I'm afraid that the GIL is killing the usefullness of python for some
types of applications now where 4,8 oder 64 threads on a chip are here
or comming soon.
What is the status about that for the future of python?
The GIL is an
On Sep 3, 2:21 am, llothar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid that the GIL is killing the usefullness of python for some
types of applications now where 4,8 oder 64 threads on a chip are here
or comming soon.
What is the status about that for the future of python?
This is FAQ. You will find
On Sep 3, 9:15 am, Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sep 3, 2:21 am, llothar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My personal opinion (and I am not the only one in the Python
community) is that
if you want to scale the way to go is to use processes, not threads,
so removing the GIL would be
Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sep 3, 2:21 am, llothar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid that the GIL is killing the usefullness of python for
some types of applications now where 4,8 oder 64 threads on a chip
are here or comming soon.
This is FAQ. You will find
I was wondering (and maybe i still do) about this GIL problem. I am
relatively new to Python (less than a year) and when i started to
think about it i said: Oh, this IS a problem. But when i dig a
little more, i found that Ah, maybe it isn't.
I strongly believe that the best usage of multiple
I was wondering (and maybe i still do) about this GIL problem. I am
relatively new to Python (less than a year) and when i started to
think about it i said: Oh, this IS a problem. But when i dig a
little more, i found that Ah, maybe it isn't.
I strongly believe that the best usage of multiple
I was wondering (and maybe i still do) about this GIL problem. I am
relatively new to Python (less than a year) and when i started to
think about it i said: Oh, this IS a problem. But when i dig a
little more, i found that Ah, maybe it isn't.
I strongly believe that the best usage of multiple
I'm afraid that the GIL is killing the usefullness of python for some
types of applications now where 4,8 oder 64 threads on a chip are here
or comming soon.
What is the status about that for the future of python?
I know that at the moment allmost nobody in the scripting world has
solved this
On 9/2/07, llothar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid that the GIL is killing the usefullness of python for some
types of applications now where 4,8 oder 64 threads on a chip are here
or comming soon.
What is the status about that for the future of python?
I know that at the moment allmost
No. http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211430
Ops, I meant:
http://www.artima.com/forums/threaded.jsp?forum=106thread=211200
--
http://www.advogato.org/person/eopadoan/
Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/edcrypt
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 3 Sep., 07:38, Eduardo O. Padoan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No.http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211430
Ops, I meant:http://www.artima.com/forums/threaded.jsp?forum=106thread=211200
Thanks. I whish there would be a project for rewritting the C
interpreter
to make it better
On Sep 2, 11:16 pm, llothar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3 Sep., 07:38, Eduardo O. Padoan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No.http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211430
Ops, I
meant:http://www.artima.com/forums/threaded.jsp?forum=106thread=211200
Thanks. I whish there would be a
39 matches
Mail list logo
