Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I never said that multiprocessing is "better" than multithreading. Maybe not, but you seem to be implying that multiprocessing is a sufficient for the most case (or the average case ?) however ill define that average case is. > This conversation would've been much easier to have given specific constraints and examples (which nobody seems to give). Not quite, there is no need grand example here, processes vs threads…
> "there is no need [for a] grand example here" > "you don't get to decide in the abstract what the right tool is for other people and context we don't know anything about" So which one is it? Do I get to ask for concrete examples for why this work is worth all the trouble, or should we just pretend like it doesn't matter because you say so? "I want threads, threads fast, others have threads" is not good enough. > "s…
Both ?
1 - There is no need for a grand example to justify the need for threading in a modern language, as we have 20/30 years of background on that topic. To repeat myself, it's all about the amount of communication between compute agent... The more communication you have , the more the process isolation/serialization cost become a problem.
2 - You yourself understand that there is are valid use case for threading, somehow those valid cases are not valid python uses. That's where the disconnect is. You don't get to say by decree what is and is not a "valid" use of python.
> "I want threads, threads fast, others have threads" is not good enough.
Neither is i don't use thread , you shouldn't use thread.
> CPython has had a GIL for the past 30 years - and things worked out just fine.
That's what the no-gil people are trying to tell you, no it's not fine and it was never fine. Effort and conversation about the replacement of the GIL are at least 10/15 years old.
> yet CPython remains the most widely used and popular VM Faulty logic , the correlation doesn't imply any causal relationship.
> and start actually justifying the asks beyond hand-waving my arguments away?
Because you aregument are not really argument, they more like strong opinion on things that are closer to esthetics and right/wrong usage of things. Happy to disagree on those one.
> There's a clear difference between building an ecosystem with multithreading in mind from day one - and suddenly introducing it out of nowhere, 30 years into it being used by millions of workloads globally.
1 - no-gil isn't out of nowhere. Conversation about this are more that 10 years old. Combined with even longer conversation in other VM/programming language.
2 - no-gil doesn't introduce threading in random workload. It allow people who want threading to use threading.
> This is why I'm asking for "qualifications"
It's your prerogative to ask for qualifications. But it's also our to decide to judge your ask and decide if they are worth our time.
Much in the same way that if feel like we don't need (in 2023) a grand example to justify why we need to add a type system, we don't need a deep conversation about threading. We all have the same information, understand the trade-off. We just have different value system and want different things out of python. And that's okay...
> the problem is not that deep" to be a proof beyond any that we should end this conversation now before things get too embarrassing for you :)
I think i have some comment somewhere explaining why no-gil was never a technically challenging problem. But the prof is simple... Sam Gross is definitely an exceptional dev, but the fact that a lone programmer come out with an acceptable solution is proof that the problem wasnt that deep.