Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

"Aahz" wrote: > In article , > Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: > >If Aahz was trolling, then he got me. I know about William of Occam, > >after whom the language was named, and his razor, but did not make the > >association, and answered seriously. > > Not trolling, but making a joke. Not always eas

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

In article , Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: >"Ben Finney" wrote: >>a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: >>> In article , >>> Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: Occam was the language that should have won the marketing prize, but didn't. >>> >>> It wasn't simple enough. >> >>*bdom-tsssh* http://en

Re: `high overhead of multiple Python processes' (was: Will multithreading make python less popular?)

Joshua Judson Rosen writes: > > Right, that's basically the issue here: the cost of using multiple > > Python processes is unnecessarily high. > What cost is that? The cost of messing with the multiprocessing module instead of having threads work properly, and the overhead of serializing Python

Re: `high overhead of multiple Python processes' (was: Will multithreading make python less popular?)

Paul Rubin writes: > > Right, that's basically the issue here: the cost of using multiple > Python processes is unnecessarily high. If that cost were lower then > we could more easily use multiple cores to make oru apps faster. What cost is that? At least on unix sy

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

I want to correct my last post where i said that there is not any intend to remove GIL from python. There is an intend actually i wish from a wizard :). On the pypy blog there is an explanation about gil and pypy "Note that multithreading in PyPy is based on a global interpreter lock, as in CPython

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 20, 4:36�am, sturlamolden wrote: > On Feb 20, 12:19 am, Mensanator wrote: > > > What am I actually seeing? If Python only uses one of the cores, > > why do both light up? > > Because of OS scheduling. You have more than one process running. The > Python process does not stay on one core. T

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 20, 12:19 am, Mensanator wrote: > What am I actually seeing? If Python only uses one of the cores, > why do both light up? Because of OS scheduling. You have more than one process running. The Python process does not stay on one core. Try to put CPython into a tight loop ("while 1: pass")

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On 20 Şubat, 01:20, Paul Rubin wrote: > I would say, slow execution is a drawback that we put up with in order > to gain benefits of Python programming that are mostly unrelated to > the causes of the slowness.  The slowness itself can be addressed by > technical mea

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

"Steve Holden" wrote: > Perhaps it's time Python stopped being a dictatorship? This will need a wholesale switch to the worship of Freya - It is rumoured that She is capable of herding cats. - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Steve Holden wrote: > What Guido doesn't seem to have accepted yet is that slowing [C]Python > down by 50% on a single-processor CPU will actually be a worthwhile > tradeoff in ten years time, when nothing will have less than eight cores > and the big boys will be running at 64 kilo-cores. Ten ye

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Paul Rubin wrote: > How old is your computer, why did you buy it, and is it the first one > you ever owned? > > For most of us, I suspect, it is not our first one, and we bought it > to get a processing speedup relative to the previous one. My computer is about eight months old, and I bought it

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Steve Holden wrote: >> It's only an error if it gets in the way. It's the experience of a lot >> of programmers that it doesn't, so it's not an error. >> > And it's not a feature of the language, rather of one or two > implementations. Neither JPython not IronPython use a GIL to the best of > my

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Paul Rubin wrote: > >C is basically never appropriate. C should be outlawed by Congress >with the ban enforced by roving pie-throwing squads . One of my favorite quotes: The last good thing written in C was Schubert's Ninth Symphony. -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > Terry Reedy writes: > > > The slowness itself can be addressed by technical means, such as > > > native-code compilation and eliminating the GIL. > > > > Given that the GIL remains to make Python run faster in the usual (up > > to now, at leas

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Mensanator wrote: > On Feb 19, 7:18 pm, Steve Holden wrote: >> Mensanator wrote: >>> On Feb 19, 2:18 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: >> [...] >>> When I run I Python program, the Windows task manager shows both >>> cores running (usually a 60/40 split) for an overall 50% usage

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Mensanator wrote: > I thought of that, but the usual Windows crap accounts for only a > couple percent prior to the Python program running. Christian Heimes > answer sounds more realistic. > > But what do I know? Be happy that your program makes use of both cores? :] You can restrict your progra

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 19, 7:18 pm, Steve Holden wrote: > Mensanator wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2:18 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > [...] > > When I run I Python program, the Windows task manager shows both > > cores running (usually a 60/40 split) for an overall 50% usage. > > > What am I actu

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Mensanator wrote: > On Feb 19, 2:18 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: [...] > When I run I Python program, the Windows task manager shows both > cores running (usually a 60/40 split) for an overall 50% usage. > > What am I actually seeing? If Python only uses one of the cores, >

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

MRAB wrote: > Tim Wintle wrote: > [snip] >> Yes, we're coming to a point where we're going to have tens of cores in >> a chip, but by that time someone far cleverer than me (possibly someone >> who's on this list) will have solved that problem. The top experts in >> many fields use Python, and if t

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Paul Rubin wrote: > Tim Rowe writes: >>> I really believe that GIL is a design error. >> It's only an error if it gets in the way. It's the experience of a lot >> of programmers that it doesn't, so it's not an error. > > [...] Denying the > problem's existence is not sensible. And if wishes wer

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Terry Reedy writes: > > The slowness itself can be addressed by technical means, such as > > native-code compilation and eliminating the GIL. > > Given that the GIL remains to make Python run faster in the usual (up > to now, at least) case of 1 processor, that seems a strange statement. We've h

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Terry Reedy wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > >> I would say, slow execution is a drawback that we put up with in order >> to gain benefits of Python programming that are mostly unrelated to >> the causes of the slowness. The slowness itself can be addressed by >> technical means, such as native-code

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Paul Rubin wrote: I would say, slow execution is a drawback that we put up with in order to gain benefits of Python programming that are mostly unrelated to the causes of the slowness. The slowness itself can be addressed by technical means, such as native-code compilation and eliminating the G

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Tim Wintle wrote: [snip] Yes, we're coming to a point where we're going to have tens of cores in a chip, but by that time someone far cleverer than me (possibly someone who's on this list) will have solved that problem. The top experts in many fields use Python, and if they weren't able to make u

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Paul Rubin wrote: > Tim Rowe writes: >>> That Python is so much slower than C is yet another area where Python >>> can use improvement. >> No, because we don't use Python where C would be more appropriate. > > C is basically never appropriate. C should be outlawed by Congress > with the ban enfo

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Mensanator wrote: > When I run I Python program, the Windows task manager shows both > cores running (usually a 60/40 split) for an overall 50% usage. > > What am I actually seeing? If Python only uses one of the cores, > why do both light up? Is everything much more complicated (due to > OS sched

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Tim Wintle wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 12:18 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: >> If such >> speedups were useless or unimportant, we would not have blown our hard >> earned cash replacing perfectly good older hardware, so we have to >> accept the concept that speed matters and ignore those platitudes th

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Tim Rowe writes: > > I really believe that GIL is a design error. > It's only an error if it gets in the way. It's the experience of a lot > of programmers that it doesn't, so it's not an error. It does get in the way of quite a few of us, but I wouldn't exactly call it an error. It was a sensib

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 19, 3:11 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > Falcolas writes: > > It's a proposition that used to bother me, until I did some actual > > programming of real world problems in Python. I've yet to really find > > a case where the application was slow enough to justify the c

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Tim Rowe writes: > > That Python is so much slower than C is yet another area where Python > > can use improvement. > > No, because we don't use Python where C would be more appropriate. C is basically never appropriate. C should be outlawed by Congress with the ban enforced by roving pie-throw

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 19, 2:18 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > sturlamolden writes: > > Yes, the GIL prevents Python threads from being used in a certain way. > > But do you really need to use threads like that? Or do you just think > > you do? > > How old is your computer, why did you buy

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 12:18 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: > If such > speedups were useless or unimportant, we would not have blown our hard > earned cash replacing perfectly good older hardware, so we have to > accept the concept that speed matters and ignore those platitudes that > say otherwise. Kin

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Tim Rowe wrote: > 2009/2/19 : >> Hi again >> >> I really want to imply that i am not in search of a perfect language. >> Python for programming productivity is a great language but there are >> some real world facts. Some people want a language that provides great >> flexibility. A language can pr

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

2009/2/19 : > Hi again > > I really want to imply that i am not in search of a perfect language. > Python for programming productivity is a great language but there are > some real world facts. Some people want a language that provides great > flexibility. A language can provide threads and proces

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

2009/2/19 Paul Rubin : > That Python is so much slower than C is yet another area where Python > can use improvement. No, because we don't use Python where C would be more appropriate. Sure nobody would complain if Python were faster, but it's not for speed that we choose Python. Not speed of /ex

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 12:48 -0800, Falcolas wrote: > That's fair, but by using a high level language in the first place, > you've already made the conscious decision to sacrifice speed for ease > of programming. Otherwise, you would probably be programming in C. My parents would have gone mad at me

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Hi again I really want to imply that i am not in search of a perfect language. Python for programming productivity is a great language but there are some real world facts. Some people want a language that provides great flexibility. A language can provide threads and processes and programmer choos

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Falcolas writes: > That's fair, but by using a high level language in the first place, > you've already made the conscious decision to sacrifice speed for ease > of programming. Otherwise, you would probably be programming in C. That Python is so much slower than C is yet another area where Pytho

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 19, 1:18 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > ...  If such > speedups were useless or unimportant, we would not have blown our hard > earned cash replacing perfectly good older hardware, so we have to > accept the concept that speed matters and ignore those platitudes that

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On 2009-02-19, Steve Holden wrote: > By the way, since you have chosen Java you might be interested > to know that the JPython implementation (also open source) > generates JVM bytecode, and allows you to freely mix Java and > Python classes. > > There is no Global Interpreter Lock in JPython ...

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > Thank you Steve, > > I really wanted to learn python, but as i said i don't want to make a > dead investment. I hope someone can fix these design errors and maybe > can write an interpreter in python :) > > Thank you so much great community... > Rushen By the way, si

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

sturlamolden writes: > Yes, the GIL prevents Python threads from being used in a certain way. > But do you really need to use threads like that? Or do you just think > you do? How old is your computer, why did you buy it, and is it the first one you ever owned? For most of us, I suspect, it is n

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

"sturlamolden" wrote in message news:d544d846-15ac-446e-a77f-cede8fcf9...@m40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > The GIL does not matter before crunching numbers on the CPU > becomes the bottleneck. And when you finally get there, perhaps it is > time to look into some C programming? Or numpy on a

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 19, 4:39 pm, rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > I really wanted to learn python, but as i said i don't want to make a > dead investment. I hope someone can fix these design errors and maybe > can write an interpreter in python :) Java and Python has different strengths and weaknesses. There is n

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

2009/2/19 : > Thank you Tim... > > It is not a search for perfect language. It is a search for a capable > language to modern worlds' needs. That would be just about any of the ones you mentioned, then. Unless you mean the needs of a specific project, in which case the suitability will depend on

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Thank you Tim... It is not a search for perfect language. It is a search for a capable language to modern worlds' needs. Rushen -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

rushen...@gmail.com schrieb: > Thank you Steve, > > I really wanted to learn python, but as i said i don't want to make a > dead investment. I hope someone can fix these design errors and maybe > can write an interpreter in python :) Good luck with Java! You have just traded one "design flaw" for

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

2009/2/19 : > Thank you Steve, > > I really wanted to learn python, but as i said i don't want to make a > dead investment. I hope someone can fix these design errors and maybe > can write an interpreter in python :) Good luck with Java, and with your search for a perfect language. I think it wil

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Thank you Steve, I really wanted to learn python, but as i said i don't want to make a dead investment. I hope someone can fix these design errors and maybe can write an interpreter in python :) Thank you so much great community... Rushen -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > Thank you for all your answers... > > I think i am going to pick Java instead of Python... > Well, good luck. See what a helpful bunch of people you meet in the Python world? Glad you found all the advice helpful. Come back when you want to try Python! regards Steve

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Thank you for all your answers... I think i am going to pick Java instead of Python... Rushen -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 18, 4:47 am, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > It is also a mistaken belief that you cannot take advantage of multi > cores with multiple threads inside of a single process using Python. > > What no one seems to remember is that when calls are made into Python > extension modules implemented in C c

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 16, 9:27 pm, Michele Simionato wrote: > On Feb 16, 10:34 am, rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Hi everybody, > > I am an engineer. I am trying to improve my software development > > abilities. I have started programming with ruby. I like it very much > > but i want to add something more.

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 16, 4:34 am, rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi everybody, > I am an engineer. I am trying to improve my software development > abilities. I have started programming with ruby. I like it very much > but i want to add something more. According to my previous research i > have designed a learning

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > As you mentioned, using multi cores makes programs more fast and more > popular. But what about stackless python? Does it interpret same set > of python libraries with Cpython or Does it have a special sub set? Your assumption is wrong. Multiple cores are able to speed

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Very well written response! Thanks Sturla On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:50 AM, sturlamolden wrote: > On 16 Feb, 10:34, rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > And the story begins here. As i search on the net, I have found that > > because of the natural characteristics of python such as GIL, we are > >

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On 16 Feb, 15:18, rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > As you mentioned, using multi cores makes programs more fast and more > popular. But what about stackless python? Does it interpret same set > of python libraries with Cpython or Does it have a special sub set? Stackless and CPython have a GIL, Jytho

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On 16 Feb, 10:34, rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > And the story begins here. As i search on the net, I have found that > because of the natural characteristics of python such as GIL, we are > not able to write multi threaded programs. Oooops, in a kind of time > with lots of cpu cores and we are not

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > rushen...@gmail.com a écrit : > (snip) >> And the story begins here. As i search on the net, I have found that >> because of the natural characteristics of python such as GIL, we are >> not able to write multi threaded programs. > > I'm surprised no one here corrected

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

rushen...@gmail.com a écrit : (snip) And the story begins here. As i search on the net, I have found that because of the natural characteristics of python such as GIL, we are not able to write multi threaded programs. I'm surprised no one here corrected that point yet, so here we go: yes, Py

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

why do you think that current work is ignorant of occam? occam itself was based on hoare's "communicating sequential processes" which is a classic of the field. the ideas behind occam are not unknown and it hasn't been forgotten (there are many libraries based on synchronous message passing; one

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

"Ben Finney" wrote: a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: > In article , > Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: > >Occam was the language that should have won the marketing prize, > >but didn't. > > It wasn't simple enough. *bdom-tsssh* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor> If Aahz was trolling, th

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

"Aahz" wrote: > In article , > Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: > > > >Occam was the language that should have won the marketing prize, but > >didn't. > > It wasn't simple enough. I thought (at the time) that it was quite good at hiding some horrible complexities of communication between different p

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 16, 9:34 am, rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi everybody, > I am an engineer. I am trying to improve my software development > abilities. I have started programming with ruby. I like it very much > but i want to add something more. According to my previous research i > have designed a learning

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 16, 10:20 pm, rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi again > > OpenERP and ERP5 was written in python as i know. I really wonder how > they do this without threads. I want to see a real time graph at the > same time while i am working on the same screen. What is the secret? > > Thanks > Rushen Her

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: > In article , > Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: > >Occam was the language that should have won the marketing prize, > >but didn't. > > It wasn't simple enough. *bdom-tsssh* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor> -- \ “I guess we were all guilty, in a

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

In article , Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: > >Occam was the language that should have won the marketing prize, but >didn't. It wasn't simple enough. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmer

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Hi again OpenERP and ERP5 was written in python as i know. I really wonder how they do this without threads. I want to see a real time graph at the same time while i am working on the same screen. What is the secret? Thanks Rushen -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

andrew cooke wrote: Thanks a lot for writing this, I'll be pointing to it from time to time. Were I writing such a thing I'd focus too much on the how (issues I know that non-GIL true concurrency faces), and not enough on the high level view. Bravo. --Scott David Daniels scott.dani...@acm.org

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

hi there, [snip] > Google uses Processes for the Tabs in Chrome, because that way they get > around many Memory Management Problems they would have with Threads or with > a singlethreaded reactor. Using Processes is not per se a bad Idea. You pay > a bit with Memory and CPU but in many situations

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Hi, > But there is > something interesting, something like multi processing. But is it a > real alternative for multi threading. As i searched it is not, it > requires heavy hardware requirements (lots of memory, lots of cpu > power). Not necessarily. For the memory, modern operating Systems can

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

"andrew cooke" wrote: >The GIL is an implementation detail. I suspect that it could be largely >removed if there was sufficient need. But that still wouldn't make Python >a good language for programming on multiple cores. That's not as big a >deal as you think, because we currently DON'T KNOW

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Dear Aleksa, As you mentioned, using multi cores makes programs more fast and more popular. But what about stackless python? Does it interpret same set of python libraries with Cpython or Does it have a special sub set? Thank you Rusen -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Or the other way around :-) Little off-topic, but... After several months of fighting with Java threads, dead locks, live locks, race conditions, I've rewritten my game server synchronization so that threads are executed in concurrent way (with only exceptions being socket sending and recieving t

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Dear Andrew, I think reading "beating the averages" by paul graham before some experience is not a very good decision. :) Thank you Andrew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

andrew cooke wrote: > something like Haskell or OCaml. Or, if you want to get hands-on > experience of concurrency now, Erlang. I think for once I said something useful there. I think you would probably enjoy Erlang, and it would be very useful for understanding concurrency. Also, Erlang is not

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi everybody, > I am an engineer. I am trying to improve my software development > abilities. I have started programming with ruby. I like it very much > but i want to add something more. According to my previous research i > have designed a learning path for myself. It

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

2009/2/16 : > I want to learn python + c++ or java because of the desire of having > python's felxibility and easiness and c++ or java's stability and > speed and power together. Yes, that's what I mean by different tradeoffs. Python is much easier to program in than C++ or Java (in my experienc

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Hi again, Dear Andreas I know about GIL in ruby interpreter, they are trying to solve problems because of GIL but it is not so important for me because i like ruby because of its esthetic and it helps me to grasp some programming concepts. As i know it is not so powerful language like java. (Powe

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

2009/2/16 : > Hi everybody, > I am an engineer. I am trying to improve my software development > abilities. I have started programming with ruby. I like it very much > but i want to add something more. According to my previous research i > have designed a learning path for myself. It's like someth

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On Feb 16, 10:34 am, rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi everybody, > I am an engineer. I am trying to improve my software development > abilities. I have started programming with ruby. I like it very much > but i want to add something more. According to my previous research i > have designed a learnin

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

Hi, Rushen! I'm also new to using Python but from what I've found, GIL is very intentional decision. It is one of the features of Python which make it so powerful. I believe that if it didn't have GIL, Python wouldn't be half near where it is now (regarding it as a language, community, platform su

Re: Will multithreading make python less popular?

On 16 Feb., 10:34, rushen...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi everybody, > I am an engineer. I am trying to improve my software development > abilities. I have started programming with ruby. I like it very much > but i want to add something more. According to my previous research i > have designed a learning

Will multithreading make python less popular?

Hi everybody, I am an engineer. I am trying to improve my software development abilities. I have started programming with ruby. I like it very much but i want to add something more. According to my previous research i have designed a learning path for myself. It's like something below. 1. Rub