Steve Jorgensen wrote: > On 05 Sep 2005 10:29:48 GMT, Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Jeremy Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> One Python process will only saturate one CPU (at a time) because >>> of the GIL (global interpreter lock). >> >>I'm hoping python won't always be like this. > > I don't get that. Python was never designed to be a high performance > language, so why add complexity to its implementation by giving it > high-performance capabilities like SMP?
It depends on personal perspective. If in a few years time we all have machines with multiple cores (eg the CELL with effective 9 CPUs on a chip, albeit 8 more specialised ones), would you prefer that your code *could* utilise your hardware sensibly rather than not. Or put another way - would you prefer to write your code mainly in a language like python, or mainly in a language like C or Java? If python, it's worth worrying about! If it was python (or similar) you might "only" have to worry about concurrency issues. If it's a language like C you might have to worry about memory management, typing AND concurrency (oh my!). (Let alone C++'s TMP :-) Regards, Michael -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list