In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Peter Hansen wrote: >> >> Ivan, what makes you say that Python is bad for threads? Did the >> qualifcation "concurrently executing/computing" have some significance >> that I missed? > >Because of the GIL (Giant interpreter lock). It can be a matter of >opinion, but by "good threading implementation" I mean that all threads >in the application should run "natively" on the underlying (p)threads >library at all times, without implicit serialization. For example, Java >and perl do this, possibly also lua and C#. Python and Ruby have a giant >interpreter lock which prevents two threads of pure python code (not >"code written in C" :)) ) in one interperter process executing at the >same time.
When did Perl gain threads? If you read Bruce Eckel, you also know that the Java threading system has been buggy for something like a decade. -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "19. A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing." --Alan Perlis -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
