On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:09:38 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2012-07-30, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > >> Still, you may still get away with the above statement by providing a >> sufficiently narrow definition of "standalone". By my definition, there >> isn't much "standalone" code out there. Most code I know interfaces >> with a couple of external tools, libraries or backends, usually written >> in languages I don't have to care about because they provide a language >> independent interface. > > It's not really relevent to this discussion, but there is _lots_ of > stand-alone code out there. It runs in sub-one-dollar microcontrollers > that are programmed in assembly language or in C without external > libraries (sometimes not even the "libc" that's included in the C > language definition). Those microcontrollers are everywhere in toys, > appliances, and all sorts of other "non-computer" things.
And at that level, you aren't going to write your app in Python anyway, and not because of the GIL. (These microcontrollers are unlikely to have multiple cores -- why the hell does your microwave oven need two cores?) It seems to me that those who claim that the GIL is a serious barrier to Python's use in the enterprise are mostly cargo-cult programmers, parroting what they've heard from other cargo-cultists. It really is astonishing the amount of misinformation and outright wrong-headed ignorance that counts as accepted wisdom in the enterprise. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
