4 ms·
If your claim is true - that removing the GIL would harm the vast majority of programs - that speaks to some deep-seated quality and architecture issues in CPyt
by cdogl 5y ago
If your claim is true - that removing the GIL would harm the vast majority of programs - that speaks to some deep-seated quality and architecture issues in CPython. I happen to agree. I love Python, but the limits of its implementation sent me packing to Go years ago and I haven't looked back.
- wiredfool 5y agoThe problem is not python programs, it's existing C language extensions. Removing the GIL while retaining compatibility with the extensions and single threaded performance is difficult.
- lmm 5y agoIt speaks to some deep-seated tradeoffs in CPython. I don't know that reference-counting or using the C stack were the right choices, but Python's existence as approximately the only sane language where you can count on every library being available suggests that they're doing something right.