3 ms·
Not for Python, I feel. In sheer volume, the vast majority of my Python programs are single-threaded. I want my programs to be very quick in runtime when they r
by sgt 3y ago
Not for Python, I feel. In sheer volume, the vast majority of my Python programs are single-threaded. I want my programs to be very quick in runtime when they run.
Those that are multi-threaded are seeing minor to medium load.
If expecting extreme load (like Twitter scale), then Python is usually not the answer (rather go to a statically typed language like Java, Go, Rust etc).
- gpderetta 3y ago> In sheer volume, the vast majority of my Python programs are single-threaded obviously if multithreading is near-useless in python, very few programs will take advantage of it.
- zo1 3y agoLikewise I can say: Obviously we still have the GIL because very few people want it removed.
- gpderetta 3y agoWell, yes, that's pretty much obvious: the majority of python programmers do not care, those that cared have moved on as it is easier than changing the language. And I'll be first to admit that improving single threaded performance has an higher priority than removing the GIL.
- AlphaSite 3y agoIs single threaded perf is important, you’ve already lost by using python. You’re only ever going to get, ok-ish performance or slightly more ok-ish
- gcbirzan 3y ago> Not for Python, I feel. In sheer volume, the vast majority of my Python programs are single-threaded. Yes, they are single threaded, because using multiple threads brings very little benefit in most cases... > If expecting extreme load (like Twitter scale), then Python is usually not the answer (rather go to a statically typed language like Java, Go, Rust etc). So that means we shouldn't get any performance improvements, because there are faster languages out there?