> I don't buy this a priori. You don’t have to buy anything, that’s been the result of every attempt so far and a big reason for their rejection. The latest ef

> I don't buy this a priori. You don’t have to buy anything, that’s been the result of every attempt so far and a big reason for their rejection. The latest effort only gained some traction because the backers also did optimisation work which compensated (and then was merged separately). > Almost everybody who removed a gigantic lock See that’s the issue with your response, you’re not actually reading the comment you’re replying to. And the “almost” is a big tell. > suddenly realizes that there was more contention than they thought and that atomizing it made performance improve. There is no contention on the gil in single threaded workloads. > Had Python bitten the bullet and removed the GIL back at Python 3.0 It would have taken several more years and been completely DOA.