Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by darkarmani 4805 days 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.
2 comments
rockasaur 4805 days ago
I'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)

link
dbecker 4805 days ago
The 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.

link
rockasaur 4802 days ago
Most 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.

link
ww2 4805 days ago
backward compatibility is not an issue. Otherwise why there are 3.x branch. This is just a lame excuse.
link
darkarmani 4805 days ago
The 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.
link