On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > I wonder if it's feasible or useful to promote threading support in > Python? Thoughts would include building threads in by default if > possible on the platform, That seems a good idea to me. It's a relatively safe thing to enable by default, no? > Providing more integrated support for threads might encourage > programmers to reach for that particular tool instead of fork, which > is crude, but pretty damn handy and easy to use. While we're at it, it'd be nice if we could provide a better answer when someone asks (as "they" often do) "how do I program with threads in Python" than our usual "the way you'd do it in C". Threading tutorials are very hard to come by, I've found (I got the ORA multi-threaded programming in win32, but it's such a monster I've barely looked at it). I suggest that we allocate about 10% of TimBot's time to that task. If necessary, we can upgrade it to a dual-CPU setup. With Greg's threading patches, we could even get it to run on both CPUs efficiently. It could write about itself. <unplug> --david
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4