You are off. It is doubtful that the GIL will ever be removed. But that really isn't the issue, the issue is the lack of a decent concurrency model, like the one provided by Stackless.
But apparently one of the things stackless allows is evil recursive programming, which Guido considers 'confusing' and wont allow in mainline python (I think another reason is that porting it to jython and .not would be hard, but I'm not familiar with the details). uriel On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:08 AM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Roman V. Shaposhnik <r...@sun.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 07:19 -0800, David Leimbach wrote: >> >>> My knowledge on this subject is about 8 or 9 years old, so check with your >>> local Python guru.... >>> >>> >>> The last I'd heard about Python's threading is that it was cooperative >>> only, and that you couldn't get real parallelism out of it. It serves >>> as a means to organize your program in a concurrent manner. >>> >>> >>> In other words no two threads run at the same time in Python, even if >>> you're on a multi-core system, due to something they call a "Global >>> Interpreter Lock". >> >> I believe GIL is as present in Python nowadays as ever. On a related >> note: does anybody know any sane interpreted languages with a decent >> threading model to go along? Stackless python is the only thing that >> I'm familiar with in that department. > > I thought part of the reason for the "big break" with Python 3000 was > to get rid of the GIL and clean that threading mess up. Or am I way > off? > >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >> >> >> > >
