You are right this not a reason not to move. The main reason is backward compatibility. In general 3.x seems to be slower than 2.x for data intensive processes. Am I wrong?
On Feb 17, 12:05 am, Graham Dumpleton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 17, 4:20 pm, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Look at this bug report > > >http://bugs.python.org/issue7946 > > > specifically look at the benchmarks at the bottom. This kind of bugs > > affects web applications since they have threads with lots of IO. One > > more reason to stay with python 2.5 for now. > > For some background context, read: > > http://www.dabeaz.com/python/NewGIL.pdf > > Based on the name, same guy as reported the bug has previously worked > in getting the GIL behaviour changed in Python 3.2 to address issues > in linked PDF. That bug report seems just to say that the changes they > made in Python 3.2 so far are not perfect as is showing up this bad > degradation for a particular use case. Just means they need to address > that particular behaviour and further optimise the code behaviour to > counter it before they release Python 3.2. > > Overall the changes made to Python 3.2 GIL seem to be positive. Once > they sort any issues like this out, it would be good to see it back > ported to Python 2.X stream. > > Anyway, not sure why you are holding this up as reason to stay with > Python 2.5. Python 2.6 and 3.1 both have old GIL code still and Python > 3.2 isn't even released yet, so this is a bug for an unreleased > version. > > Graham -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en.
