> Where is this demand exactly? The motivation summary of PEP-703 contains some material on this: https://peps.python.org/pep-0703/#motivation https://peps.py

> Where is this demand exactly? The motivation summary of PEP-703 contains some material on this: https://peps.python.org/pep-0703/#motivation https://peps.python.org/pep-0703/#motivation Further discussions going back years can be found with a brief search. This discussion is almost as old as Python3. > due to a lack of awareness of available (& often better) alternatives to threading. Such as? There are exactly 2: asyncio, which is useless for CPU/GPU bound workloads, and multiprocessing with all the pain of relying on expensive spawns, expensive and limited IPC and the joy of having to orchestrate across process boundaries. Guess what the most common advice is for dealing with CPU bound parallelisation problems in Python? "Use another language". Guess what all the languages recommended (C, C++, Rust, Go, Java) have in common? They have thread-based parallelism. > There is a very small number of use cases that will benefit from free threading. Basically any workload that is CPU bound, which in the day and age of giant data aggragation and running huge ML models at scale is more important than every before, is a use case for this.