3 ms·

703 is probably the right path towards true gilless python, but to quote Greg Smith (gpshead) on the PR, > We're not ready to simply pronounce on 703 as it has

by kortex 3y ago

703 is probably the right path towards true gilless python, but to quote Greg Smith (gpshead) on the PR, > We're not ready to simply pronounce on 703 as it has a HUGE blast radius. 703 isn't even out of draft PEP status. I think they need to come to consensus on 703, or modify it until it is acceptable, and then figure out how to merge the code and release it. I don't know for sure, but it looks like even with the compile nogil flag off, there are enough low-level API changes that extensions would break. If they can do it without breaking extensions with the flag off, I can see this happening over the next few years. But it's no small feat.

soulbadguy 3y ago
I don't think anybody is saying to accept PEP 703 (and i don't want to make this conversation just about PEP 703, there was many other promising gil-less proposals) tomorrow. The main complain of the author of PEP (and other people as well) is the lack of clarity on the criteria for inclusion, as well as the constant goal post moving. > it looks like even with the compile nogil flag off, there are enough low-level API changes that extensions would break. From my understand, after testing from the author (and couple of other people on the discord thread) no case have been found yet. Greg's point is that the blast radium is so large that there is high probability that this might happen. We won't know until we test in the wild... And we won't test in the wild until the council arrives at a conclusion. The burden of proof here is so absurdly high, and has to be paid be Sam alone here that this will essentially kill this proposal.
- nunuvit 3y ago
  > the lack of clarity on the criteria for inclusion, as well as the constant goal post moving This is where I think Sam is being unfair. He's asking for a breaking change. For 25 years, CPython has consistently and clearly said that they fully support no-gil in other implementations, and have a minimum criteria of no performance regressions for CPython. He made his performance demonstration before getting real buy-in. I understand he made that choice because of how his funding works, and now he's desperate to get a result. They acknowledged his demo and said they're considering it. Lashing out and accusing them of unclear criteria and moving goalposts misrepresents the situation. It's not his decision to risk burning the community on a breaking change. He knows they haven't decided on it. It's reasonable to expect someone to do that work. He hasn't done it, so they will have to do it. The steering committee also has to consider how this change will impact pursuing other goals. It doesn't exist in a vacuum all by itself. They reiterated that they do in fact want to remove the gil, even after noting how much work it will be to do due diligence. They've also said they want to take in big projects like creating a JIT. Seems to me like effort itself isn't an issue. By calling it a fork, coming from the steering committee, they're saying either the transition plan is non-existent, or it's the wrong design for their goals, or it's coming at a bad time. Maybe all of them. His task was to convince the committee to remove the gil. He interpreted that as simply doing a technical demonstration. Not sure why, especially given the history.
- hrtagr 3y ago
  It's partly political. If GvR is paid by a company to work on something, the result goes in, no matter how bad it is. The NoGIL effort comes from Facebook and as such is suspect (until Microsoft switches to Golang like Google and Dropbox and GvR moves to Facebook).

by kortex 3y ago

soulbadguy 3y ago

I don't think anybody is saying to accept PEP 703 (and i don't want to make this conversation just about PEP 703, there was many other promising gil-less proposals) tomorrow. The main complain of the author of PEP (and other people as well) is the lack of clarity on the criteria for inclusion, as well as the constant goal post moving. > it looks like even with the compile nogil flag off, there are enough low-level API changes that extensions would break. From my understand, after testing from the author (and couple of other people on the discord thread) no case have been found yet. Greg's point is that the blast radium is so large that there is high probability that this might happen. We won't know until we test in the wild... And we won't test in the wild until the council arrives at a conclusion. The burden of proof here is so absurdly high, and has to be paid be Sam alone here that this will essentially kill this proposal.

nunuvit 3y ago
> the lack of clarity on the criteria for inclusion, as well as the constant goal post moving This is where I think Sam is being unfair. He's asking for a breaking change. For 25 years, CPython has consistently and clearly said that they fully support no-gil in other implementations, and have a minimum criteria of no performance regressions for CPython. He made his performance demonstration before getting real buy-in. I understand he made that choice because of how his funding works, and now he's desperate to get a result. They acknowledged his demo and said they're considering it. Lashing out and accusing them of unclear criteria and moving goalposts misrepresents the situation. It's not his decision to risk burning the community on a breaking change. He knows they haven't decided on it. It's reasonable to expect someone to do that work. He hasn't done it, so they will have to do it. The steering committee also has to consider how this change will impact pursuing other goals. It doesn't exist in a vacuum all by itself. They reiterated that they do in fact want to remove the gil, even after noting how much work it will be to do due diligence. They've also said they want to take in big projects like creating a JIT. Seems to me like effort itself isn't an issue. By calling it a fork, coming from the steering committee, they're saying either the transition plan is non-existent, or it's the wrong design for their goals, or it's coming at a bad time. Maybe all of them. His task was to convince the committee to remove the gil. He interpreted that as simply doing a technical demonstration. Not sure why, especially given the history.
hrtagr 3y ago
It's partly political. If GvR is paid by a company to work on something, the result goes in, no matter how bad it is. The NoGIL effort comes from Facebook and as such is suspect (until Microsoft switches to Golang like Google and Dropbox and GvR moves to Facebook).