3 ms·

> if someone came up with (otherwise acceptable) > changes to get rid of the GIL I wouldn't object. that was the big news for me.

by monos 17y ago

jnoller 17y ago
Then you're not paying attention. No one (except a broken minority) said that they would not want to get rid of the GIL so long as single threaded performance was note degraded. Guido himself has stated this time and time again. The one thing missing to all the bright ideas and suggested ways of doing it? A patch.
- monos 17y ago
  thx for clarifying this. still a strange example since the GIL is not thought to be a problem, from what i read on pydev.
  - jnoller 17y ago
    The GIL is an implementation detail; not a bug.
    - amalcon 17y ago
      Calling the GIL an implementation detail is like calling tail call elimination an implementation detail: for most software, it may be so, but there are idioms one may or may not be able to use depending on that detail. It's a visible implementation detail.
      - aceofspades19 17y ago
        Well, in other implementations like jython and iron python, the GIL doesn't exist, so I think most people would consider it just an implementation detail
      - ubernostrum 17y ago
        Tail-call is an implementation detail. The fact that some people think it's as fundamental to programming as the Ten Commandments is to the Judeo-Christian tradition is... well, perhaps more a problem with programmers than with language implementations. (and yes, it's visible, and that's one reason why I have issues with it -- it's a classic leaky abstraction, except in this case the "leak" is more like a torrential flood)
        eru 17y ago
        If your `while'-loops would crash after a certain number of iterations (and use linear memory before that), would you call that an implementation detail or a leaky abstraction? I'd call it a bug. And special case constructs for linear recursion like `for' and `while' are only a necessary band-aid in languages that do not treat functions properly.
        ubernostrum 17y ago
        Thank you for making my point eloquently. The assumption that the way you prefer to write code should be the only way to write code is, well, exactly what I was talking about.
      - jnoller 17y ago
        tail call elimination is a language feature. The GIL is an implementation detail of the Cpython interpreter. Jython, IronPython, and one day PyPy and Unladen-Swallow will not have a GIL. Ergo, it is an implementation detail.
varikin 17y ago
From what I have read, GvR and other core Python people are in favor of removing the GIL, but the solution to removing the GIL has to not hurt performance CPython and must not cause any regressions. Some have worked on replacing GIL, but have not finished the work.

> if someone came up with (otherwise acceptable) > changes to get rid of the GIL I wouldn't object. that was the big news for me.

by monos 17y ago

> if someone came up with (otherwise acceptable) > changes to get rid of the GIL I wouldn't object. that was the big news for me.

jnoller 17y ago

Then you're not paying attention. No one (except a broken minority) said that they would not want to get rid of the GIL so long as single threaded performance was note degraded. Guido himself has stated this time and time again. The one thing missing to all the bright ideas and suggested ways of doing it? A patch.

monos 17y ago
thx for clarifying this. still a strange example since the GIL is not thought to be a problem, from what i read on pydev.
- jnoller 17y ago
  The GIL is an implementation detail; not a bug.
  - amalcon 17y ago
    Calling the GIL an implementation detail is like calling tail call elimination an implementation detail: for most software, it may be so, but there are idioms one may or may not be able to use depending on that detail. It's a visible implementation detail.
    - aceofspades19 17y ago
      Well, in other implementations like jython and iron python, the GIL doesn't exist, so I think most people would consider it just an implementation detail
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      Tail-call is an implementation detail. The fact that some people think it's as fundamental to programming as the Ten Commandments is to the Judeo-Christian tradition is... well, perhaps more a problem with programmers than with language implementations. (and yes, it's visible, and that's one reason why I have issues with it -- it's a classic leaky abstraction, except in this case the "leak" is more like a torrential flood)
      - eru 17y ago
        If your `while'-loops would crash after a certain number of iterations (and use linear memory before that), would you call that an implementation detail or a leaky abstraction? I'd call it a bug. And special case constructs for linear recursion like `for' and `while' are only a necessary band-aid in languages that do not treat functions properly.
        ubernostrum 17y ago
        Thank you for making my point eloquently. The assumption that the way you prefer to write code should be the only way to write code is, well, exactly what I was talking about.
    - jnoller 17y ago
      tail call elimination is a language feature. The GIL is an implementation detail of the Cpython interpreter. Jython, IronPython, and one day PyPy and Unladen-Swallow will not have a GIL. Ergo, it is an implementation detail.

varikin 17y ago

From what I have read, GvR and other core Python people are in favor of removing the GIL, but the solution to removing the GIL has to not hurt performance CPython and must not cause any regressions. Some have worked on replacing GIL, but have not finished the work.