3 ms·
> In the same vain he speaks of GIL as something that is good enough and need not be removed. If you want to remove the GIL and come up with a way to make the
by darkarmani 14y ago
> In the same vain he speaks of GIL as something that is good enough and need not be removed.
If you want to remove the GIL and come up with a way to make the thousands of 3rd-party modules still work, please do it. Beazley has investigated it, but if you think you can do better, please do it.
- rockasaur 14y agoI'd rather have true threading power than thousands of 3rd party modules. The modules can be re-written. By removing the GIL, we are giving a definite power boost to the language(applies to ruby too)
- dbecker 14y agoThe extremely widespread use of CPython over PyPy suggests that most users feel differently. Personally, if I had to go without 3rd party modules like numpy and pandas for any length of time, I might just switch to another language.
- rockasaur 14y agoMost people seem to flock to the reference implementation of a language rather than alternatives. Which is why most people use CRuby even though JRuby is faster. Guido should just take it like a man and accept a pull request to merge PyPy's JIT interpreter into CPython.
- ww2 14y agobackward compatibility is not an issue. Otherwise why there are 3.x branch. This is just a lame excuse.
- darkarmani 14y agoThe 3.x branch still has a GIL, so those modules can still be compiled to work with python 3. If you think it is a lame excuse, you obviously haven't looked into the details and you don't understand the problem.