3 ms·

> "there is no need [for a] grand example here" > "you don't get to decide in the abstract what the right tool is for other people and context we don't know an

> "there is no need [for a] grand example here" > "you don't get to decide in the abstract what the right tool is for other people and context we don't know anything about" So which one is it? Do I get to ask for concrete examples for why this work is worth all the trouble, or should we just pretend like it doesn't matter because you say so? "I want threads, threads fast, others have threads" is not good enough. > "somehow you say that there is no valid need for threading" I've never said that. All I've been asking for are concrete examples that would justify removing the GIL and the impact it would have on the ecosystem. You won't provide any, despite me asking over and over again. > "You have the magical ability to be plug into the python hivemind and decide which use case are valid" CPython has had a GIL for the past 30 years - and things worked out just fine. There are other Python VMs that don't have a GIL - yet CPython remains the most widely used and popular VM. So how about you stop putting words in my mouth, and start actually justifying the asks beyond hand-waving my arguments away? > "The fact that you ask for this level of qualification for a feature that pretty much every other language has is the problem." Again, you're twisting and putting words in my mouth. There's a clear difference between building an ecosystem with multithreading in mind from day one - and suddenly introducing it out of nowhere, 30 years into it being used by millions of workloads globally. This is why I'm asking for "qualifications" (which you won't provide), and this is why I also deem your assertion that "the problem is not that deep" to be a proof beyond any that we should end this conversation now before things get too embarrassing for you :)

soulbadguy 3y ago
> So which one is it? Do I get to ask for concrete examples for why this work is worth all the trouble, or should we just pretend like it doesn't matter because you say so? Both ? 1 - There is no need for a grand example to justify the need for threading in a modern language, as we have 20/30 years of background on that topic. To repeat myself, it's all about the amount of communication between compute agent... The more communication you have , the more the process isolation/serialization cost become a problem. 2 - You yourself understand that there is are valid use case for threading, somehow those valid cases are not valid python uses. That's where the disconnect is. You don't get to say by decree what is and is not a "valid" use of python. > "I want threads, threads fast, others have threads" is not good enough. Neither is i don't use thread , you shouldn't use thread. > CPython has had a GIL for the past 30 years - and things worked out just fine. That's what the no-gil people are trying to tell you, no it's not fine and it was never fine. Effort and conversation about the replacement of the GIL are at least 10/15 years old. > yet CPython remains the most widely used and popular VM Faulty logic , the correlation doesn't imply any causal relationship. > and start actually justifying the asks beyond hand-waving my arguments away? Because you aregument are not really argument, they more like strong opinion on things that are closer to esthetics and right/wrong usage of things. Happy to disagree on those one. > There's a clear difference between building an ecosystem with multithreading in mind from day one - and suddenly introducing it out of nowhere, 30 years into it being used by millions of workloads globally. 1 - no-gil isn't out of nowhere. Conversation about this are more that 10 years old. Combined with even longer conversation in other VM/programming language. 2 - no-gil doesn't introduce threading in random workload. It allow people who want threading to use threading. > This is why I'm asking for "qualifications" It's your prerogative to ask for qualifications. But it's also our to decide to judge your ask and decide if they are worth our time. Much in the same way that if feel like we don't need (in 2023) a grand example to justify why we need to add a type system, we don't need a deep conversation about threading. We all have the same information, understand the trade-off. We just have different value system and want different things out of python. And that's okay... > the problem is not that deep" to be a proof beyond any that we should end this conversation now before things get too embarrassing for you :) I think i have some comment somewhere explaining why no-gil was never a technically challenging problem. But the prof is simple... Sam Gross is definitely an exceptional dev, but the fact that a lone programmer come out with an acceptable solution is proof that the problem wasnt that deep.
usrbinbash 3y ago
> CPython has had a GIL for the past 30 years - and things worked out just fine. No, they did not. That's why the discussion about the GIL is about as old as Python3 itself. The GIL has always been a major drawback of python, moreso because the language does in fact have threading support...only it can't use threads for parallel workloads. This drawback was tolerated, because of the many advantages Python brings to the table, and because Python comes from an age when Moores Law was still in full effect; Powerful single cores were the norm not so long ago. This isn't the case any more. Moores Law is done. Now we increase the number of cores, and languages that wish to remain relevant, need to reflect that.

soulbadguy 3y ago

> So which one is it? Do I get to ask for concrete examples for why this work is worth all the trouble, or should we just pretend like it doesn't matter because you say so? Both ? 1 - There is no need for a grand example to justify the need for threading in a modern language, as we have 20/30 years of background on that topic. To repeat myself, it's all about the amount of communication between compute agent... The more communication you have , the more the process isolation/serialization cost become a problem. 2 - You yourself understand that there is are valid use case for threading, somehow those valid cases are not valid python uses. That's where the disconnect is. You don't get to say by decree what is and is not a "valid" use of python. > "I want threads, threads fast, others have threads" is not good enough. Neither is i don't use thread , you shouldn't use thread. > CPython has had a GIL for the past 30 years - and things worked out just fine. That's what the no-gil people are trying to tell you, no it's not fine and it was never fine. Effort and conversation about the replacement of the GIL are at least 10/15 years old. > yet CPython remains the most widely used and popular VM Faulty logic , the correlation doesn't imply any causal relationship. > and start actually justifying the asks beyond hand-waving my arguments away? Because you aregument are not really argument, they more like strong opinion on things that are closer to esthetics and right/wrong usage of things. Happy to disagree on those one. > There's a clear difference between building an ecosystem with multithreading in mind from day one - and suddenly introducing it out of nowhere, 30 years into it being used by millions of workloads globally. 1 - no-gil isn't out of nowhere. Conversation about this are more that 10 years old. Combined with even longer conversation in other VM/programming language. 2 - no-gil doesn't introduce threading in random workload. It allow people who want threading to use threading. > This is why I'm asking for "qualifications" It's your prerogative to ask for qualifications. But it's also our to decide to judge your ask and decide if they are worth our time. Much in the same way that if feel like we don't need (in 2023) a grand example to justify why we need to add a type system, we don't need a deep conversation about threading. We all have the same information, understand the trade-off. We just have different value system and want different things out of python. And that's okay... > the problem is not that deep" to be a proof beyond any that we should end this conversation now before things get too embarrassing for you :) I think i have some comment somewhere explaining why no-gil was never a technically challenging problem. But the prof is simple... Sam Gross is definitely an exceptional dev, but the fact that a lone programmer come out with an acceptable solution is proof that the problem wasnt that deep.

usrbinbash 3y ago

> CPython has had a GIL for the past 30 years - and things worked out just fine. No, they did not. That's why the discussion about the GIL is about as old as Python3 itself. The GIL has always been a major drawback of python, moreso because the language does in fact have threading support...only it can't use threads for parallel workloads. This drawback was tolerated, because of the many advantages Python brings to the table, and because Python comes from an age when Moores Law was still in full effect; Powerful single cores were the norm not so long ago. This isn't the case any more. Moores Law is done. Now we increase the number of cores, and languages that wish to remain relevant, need to reflect that.