Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is a really short-sighted perspective.

Proper support of threading inherently allows more performance and flexibility than multiprocessing. On top of them, you can build powerful, Pythonic abstractions like concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor.map and STM, and on top of those, even more powerful abstractions that help the developer avoid concurrency bugs.

I'm really excited for PyPy. That is a project full of people who are not afraid to quickly iterate on powerful ideas that can make Python a high performance language that it deserves to be, instead of resorting to calling MT programming a "fringe case" and ad hominem attacks.



I wish you’d read the article before making your accusations.


I have. There's an ad hominem attack in the middle of it. Otherwise it's a great article.

I understand that everyone here is acting in good faith and wants Python to be better, and the article otherwise contains lots of great information presented in a reasonable manner. You bring up lots of good points too. But other statements like the ones I mentioned are overly broad or brash.


I think it’s just attrition by explaining the GIL problem over and over again. Nick is one of the major core developers and probably just fed up by the topic. So this bit of snark is all the pay he’ll ever get for his work on CPython.


I really liked the article. But look at how much of this thread is spent talking about that bit of snark. I think that mixing the snark in with all of the rational reasons for Python 3's existence and not working on the GIL made some people less receptive to rational arguments. In other words, I don't think it was worth it.


"Pythonic abstractions like concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor.map"

Although it might be great stuff, the word 'Pythonic' is pretty funny next to a long Java-style name like that




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: