[enabling threads per default] > > > > How you are going to sell the performance loss due to > > enabled thread support even when a script doesn't > > need threads at all ? > > > > How about building two versions of the interpreter per default: > > one with threads enabled and one without threads ? > > Hey, the sky is falling, too. > > If people are concerned with the performance and want to eek that gain out, > then they can build with --without-threads > > Not a problem. > > "Gee. My operating system is too slow because it deals with all these > process and threads. Why can't I have a single-process OS like DOS? It runs > *so* much faster." Oh well... never mind, as long as I can still build my Python without threads, I'm fine :-) BTW, what about the idea of adding threads at Python level that was tossed around a few years ago ? Should be easy to do given Christian's stackless patches together with the asyncore libs... -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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