functioncalls)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A month ago, Nathan Binkert wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be nicer to have a facility that let you send messages
> > between processes and manage concurrency properly instead? You'll
> > need
> > most of this anyway to do multithreading sanely, and the benefit to
> > the
> > multiple process model is that you can scale to multiple machines, not
> > just processors. For brokering data between processes on the same
> > machine, you can use mapped memory if you can't afford to copy it
> > around, which gives you basically all the benefits of threads with
> > fewer pitfalls.
>
> I don't think this is an answered problem. There are plenty of
> researchers on both sides of this fence. It is not been proven at all
> that threads are a bad model.
>
> http://capriccio.cs.berkeley.edu/pubs/threads-hotos-2003.pdf or even
> http://www.python.org/~jeremy/weblog/030912.html
>
I want to add: me, too. That is, while all my instincts incline
toward message-passing and "bulkier" concurrency which emphasizes
clusters more than multiprocessors, what's most certain to me is
that we--computing people, academics, all of us together--really
don't know yet what the right answers are.
*My* personal desire: Python as a healthy industrial-strength
language strong enough to support such radical experiments as
Stackless, PyPy, a sophisticated multithreader, and so on. It has
been; I expect it will be.
Cameron Lairdhttp://www.phaseit.net
Phaseit, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 281 996 8546 FAX
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
