[miraculixx]

This requirement could have been well served with a gil per thread and arena based (shared) object allocation model. Every other use case would have been unaffected.

Now we change the world for everyone and put most of library developers through a valley of desperation for 5 years+, just so that a very few narrow use cases get the benefits they want.

Not a smart move IMHO.

[r0l1]

Good point. Did the Meta and Deepmind devs really miss this?

I try to avoid python as much as possible, because I mainly work with Go & C++ and multi-threading with those languages is just better (imho). Bringing python a step forward and making it future proof might be a good thing... Even if this means to break some things? Not sure if dismissing the GIL is the right step, but there is a big performance gap to fix. Or maybe the AI community must move to a better suited language? Having python code in production just feels so wrong. Especially if a rewrite in another language shows the performance gap.

[miraculixx]

The PEP notes subinterpreters as an alternative and says it can be considered a valid approach to achieve paralleism. However it does not discuss why nogil was given preferences. I guess that's ok because the PEP is about nogil.

I'm not sure whether the SC has considered alternative approaches but it would be surprising if not

[samus]

The use cases of the ML and AI world are very important though, as they massively contribute to Python's popularity. Thanks to Python, researchers and developers don't have to use different languages and library ecosystems for developing and scaling models.

Alas, subinterpreters sound like they could be a feasible solution for many use cases as well.