3 ms·
Did they get rid of the GIL?
by rq1 5y ago
Did they get rid of the GIL?
- arthurcolle 5y agoapparently they did
- reikonomusha 5y agoGetting rid of the GIL isn’t the hard part. It’s getting rid of the GIL and having existing Python code continue to work, with C extensions and all.
- thomasjudge 5y agoWhere is this documented
- rafaelgarrido 5y agoThere's some info on the proposal here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28896367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28896367
- quietbritishjim 5y agoI think the root comment is asking whether this new Python-on-Rust interpreter for rid of the GIL. Your link is about the existing CPython interpreter.
- grawp 5y agoWhy document something they have not implemented?
- michaelmior 5y agoBecause rightly or wrongly, tons of existing Python code implicitly requires on the GIL to function correctly. Especially when you have C extensions that may not be thread-safe.
- pca006132 5y agoGetting rid of the GIL does not imply better performance... Currently, their implementation is quite slow, part of the reason is due to extensive use of atomic integers and RC usage. https://github.com/RustPython/RustPython/issues/2445 https://github.com/RustPython/RustPython/issues/2445 https://github.com/RustPython/RustPython/issues/2474 https://github.com/RustPython/RustPython/issues/2474
- pmarreck 5y agoThe presence of any kind of GIL is probably my latest "will not use this language" filter, it's why I originally switched to Elixir actually (it does not require a GIL because all memory is immutable and concurrency is trivial in that case)