3 ms·

elixir, golang, java, c++ I'm relearning c++ right now just because I am building a poker solver for a toy project. You are right btw, if 32 core cpus become

elixir, golang, java, c++ I'm relearning c++ right now just because I am building a poker solver for a toy project. You are right btw, if 32 core cpus become common because of a race to the bottom in prices I imagine there will be a massive increase in demand for programmers with the experience to program massively parallel systems. edit: and rust :)

solotronics 7y ago
even python with asyncio and multithreading / multiprocessing
- armitron 7y ago
  Python with asyncio and multithreading doesn't take good advantage of multiple cores due to the global interpreter lock. With multiprocessing, one pays big costs in IPC. Python is not at all suitable today for parallelism. Which is one reason why languages like Go and Elixir are gaining so much traction.
  - no_wizard 7y ago
    They’re actively working on a neat angle at solving this problem via much cleaner IPC through spawning sub interpreters https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0554/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0554/ This just may be the way forward in the Python ecosystem
    - blattimwind 7y ago
      Subinterpreters share a common GIL. Also subinterpreters don't share Python objects, which means among other things that all modules are imported separately in each SI, which increases startup time, memory usage and reduce cache effectiveness. It's a band-aid. If you want to run Python code in parallel, without large overhead, then CPython is simply not your environment to do so, and Python is not a good choice overall in that kind of endeavour.
  - blattimwind 7y ago
    > Python is not at all suitable today for parallelism. As a long time Python dev, including work on parallel applications, I have to agree. It's always annoying in Python, and entirely Un-Pythonic.
- montecarl 7y ago
  Or python with mpi4py. MPI is the perfect multiprocessing paradigm for parallel python code, since you avoid the GIL. You can easily use MPI on a single workstation, or scale it to run on a supercomputer.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  Python is just about the worst major programming language to write high-performance code in. The only slower major language is Ruby. If you're using Python to invoke highly-optimised native-code, then your performance will be excellent (as shown by the various Python numerical libraries), but performance-sensitive code shouldn't run in the Python interpreter. As others have said, Python also lacks true multithreading (its threads are capable of concurrency but not parallelism, on account of the GIL), but you do have the option of just running a bunch of Python processes in parallel. I imagine that's a workable solution at least some of the time, but I've never explored this, so I don't know how good the library support is. Edit: Someone else mentioned 'mpi4py' which seems to be a Python library for multi-process work.
UnpossibleJim 7y ago
I apologize in advance, but I would be remise if I didn't put in the obligatory call out for Rust =)
- zeotroph 7y ago
  ...but without a sentence or three about the reasons you think Rust is more suited for parallel workloads you are just giving Rust users a bad name again (see Rust Evangelism Strikeforce).
  - UnpossibleJim 7y ago
    That's completely fair, and rather than take on why it handles parallel cycles better during workload better, I tend to take a different approach with Rust and parallelism. I enjoy the compiler and parallel work loads and the elimination (well, reduction, let's face facts) of safety concerns and data races. It isn't that these same things can't be done, and done as well, with other languages but the built in tool chain is done without extension with Rust. Now, there is a learning curve and a different programming paradigm (though not a radically different as I was warned), which I happen to enjoy. It won't be for everyone. No language is. The resources are there and free (online) and I do encourage people with some spare time to give it a spin, but I don't think it's the end of the world if people don't want to =) That being said, I like it, but I tend to use Python more. I wish I had more of a chance to use Rust in my daily life, but I don't use it at work =/
pornel 7y ago
I'm enjoying the Rust ecosystem. Everyone writes programs with multi-threading in mind, because the language requires everything to be thread-safe anyway.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zozbot234 7y ago
  It only requires thread-safety for stuff that's actually being shared across threads. Which is even more important since it means you're not paying for thread safety via reduced performance where it isn't needed.
zzzcpan 7y ago
Elixir uses slow interpreted vm, you can't put it into the same high performance category and golang, java, c++ and rust can't do well on massively multicore systems on their own, you would have to fight them to do it, ditch idiomatic ideas and effectively build your own runtime and use your own concurrency model (not shared memory multithreading!). So they are more like every other language that is somewhat close to the primitives that OS and hardware provide, not actually well suited for the job itself.
- dnautics 7y ago
  Elixir is compiled. And as someone who worked in HPC, I would really not call golang high performance (by the criteria which people in HPC consider "high performance")
ifoundthetao 7y ago
Yep, and with the ease of concurrency in Go and Rust, it'll be freakin' awesome. And hopefully, we'll get some novel security research in areas dealing with attacks against concurrency and parallel execution.
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  What ease of concurrency are you talking about? See concurrency bugs in Go paper: https://songlh.github.io/paper/go-study.pdf https://songlh.github.io/paper/go-study.pdf

solotronics 7y ago

even python with asyncio and multithreading / multiprocessing

armitron 7y ago
Python with asyncio and multithreading doesn't take good advantage of multiple cores due to the global interpreter lock. With multiprocessing, one pays big costs in IPC. Python is not at all suitable today for parallelism. Which is one reason why languages like Go and Elixir are gaining so much traction.
- no_wizard 7y ago
  They’re actively working on a neat angle at solving this problem via much cleaner IPC through spawning sub interpreters https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0554/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0554/ This just may be the way forward in the Python ecosystem
  - blattimwind 7y ago
    Subinterpreters share a common GIL. Also subinterpreters don't share Python objects, which means among other things that all modules are imported separately in each SI, which increases startup time, memory usage and reduce cache effectiveness. It's a band-aid. If you want to run Python code in parallel, without large overhead, then CPython is simply not your environment to do so, and Python is not a good choice overall in that kind of endeavour.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  > Python is not at all suitable today for parallelism. As a long time Python dev, including work on parallel applications, I have to agree. It's always annoying in Python, and entirely Un-Pythonic.
montecarl 7y ago
Or python with mpi4py. MPI is the perfect multiprocessing paradigm for parallel python code, since you avoid the GIL. You can easily use MPI on a single workstation, or scale it to run on a supercomputer.
MaxBarraclough 7y ago
Python is just about the worst major programming language to write high-performance code in. The only slower major language is Ruby. If you're using Python to invoke highly-optimised native-code, then your performance will be excellent (as shown by the various Python numerical libraries), but performance-sensitive code shouldn't run in the Python interpreter. As others have said, Python also lacks true multithreading (its threads are capable of concurrency but not parallelism, on account of the GIL), but you do have the option of just running a bunch of Python processes in parallel. I imagine that's a workable solution at least some of the time, but I've never explored this, so I don't know how good the library support is. Edit: Someone else mentioned 'mpi4py' which seems to be a Python library for multi-process work.

UnpossibleJim 7y ago

I apologize in advance, but I would be remise if I didn't put in the obligatory call out for Rust =)

zeotroph 7y ago
...but without a sentence or three about the reasons you think Rust is more suited for parallel workloads you are just giving Rust users a bad name again (see Rust Evangelism Strikeforce).
- UnpossibleJim 7y ago
  That's completely fair, and rather than take on why it handles parallel cycles better during workload better, I tend to take a different approach with Rust and parallelism. I enjoy the compiler and parallel work loads and the elimination (well, reduction, let's face facts) of safety concerns and data races. It isn't that these same things can't be done, and done as well, with other languages but the built in tool chain is done without extension with Rust. Now, there is a learning curve and a different programming paradigm (though not a radically different as I was warned), which I happen to enjoy. It won't be for everyone. No language is. The resources are there and free (online) and I do encourage people with some spare time to give it a spin, but I don't think it's the end of the world if people don't want to =) That being said, I like it, but I tend to use Python more. I wish I had more of a chance to use Rust in my daily life, but I don't use it at work =/

pornel 7y ago

I'm enjoying the Rust ecosystem. Everyone writes programs with multi-threading in mind, because the language requires everything to be thread-safe anyway.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zozbot234 7y ago
It only requires thread-safety for stuff that's actually being shared across threads. Which is even more important since it means you're not paying for thread safety via reduced performance where it isn't needed.

zzzcpan 7y ago

Elixir uses slow interpreted vm, you can't put it into the same high performance category and golang, java, c++ and rust can't do well on massively multicore systems on their own, you would have to fight them to do it, ditch idiomatic ideas and effectively build your own runtime and use your own concurrency model (not shared memory multithreading!). So they are more like every other language that is somewhat close to the primitives that OS and hardware provide, not actually well suited for the job itself.

dnautics 7y ago
Elixir is compiled. And as someone who worked in HPC, I would really not call golang high performance (by the criteria which people in HPC consider "high performance")

ifoundthetao 7y ago

Yep, and with the ease of concurrency in Go and Rust, it'll be freakin' awesome. And hopefully, we'll get some novel security research in areas dealing with attacks against concurrency and parallel execution.

zzzcpan 7y ago
What ease of concurrency are you talking about? See concurrency bugs in Go paper: https://songlh.github.io/paper/go-study.pdf https://songlh.github.io/paper/go-study.pdf