On 24 Jan 2007 17:12:19 GMT, Nick Maclaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Carl J. Van Arsdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > |> Hey everyone, I have a question about python threads. Before anyone > |> goes further, this is not a debate about threads vs. processes, just a > |> question. > |> > |> With that, are python threads reliable? Or rather, are they safe? I've > |> had some strange errors in the past, I use threading.lock for my > |> critical sections, but I wonder if that is really good enough. > |> > |> Does anyone have any conclusive evidence that python threads/locks are > |> safe or unsafe? > > Unsafe. They are built on top of unsafe primitives (POSIX, Microsoft > etc.) Python will shield you from some problems, but not all. > > There is precious little that you can do, because the root cause is > that the standards and specifications are hopelessly flawed. >
This is sufficiently inaccurate that I would call it FUD. Using threads from Python, as from any other language, requires knowledge of the tradeoffs and limitations of threading, but claiming that their usage is *inherently* unsafe isn't true. It is almost certain that your code and locking are flawed, not that the threads underneath you are buggy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
