3 ms·
But then multi-interpreters would allow that, and the article discard it as a valid solution. I find it harsh. It seems much easier to implement, doesn't have t
by sametmax 9y ago
But then multi-interpreters would allow that, and the article discard it as a valid solution. I find it harsh. It seems much easier to implement, doesn't have the same serialization problem than multiprocessing has and allow to utilize all the CPUs. Yes it's not as good proper threads because you do have more overhead, but it's an order of magnitude better than what we currently have, while being way easier to do that getting rid of the GIL.
Too bad the current project is on hold.
- sitkack 9y agoThe points against sub-interpreters or multi-interpreters is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of scenarios where having multiple interpreters in the same address space would be valuable. Queues could be effectively to communicate between interpreters, no sharing needed. Where sharing is required, those structures can be on their own non-VM heap with the required locks.