2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters

[Paul Boddie]

On 4 Nov, 16:00, sturlamolden <sturlamol... at yahoo.no> wrote:
> If you are serious about multicore programming, take a look at:
>
> http://www.cilk.com/
>
> Now if we could make Python do something like that, people would
> perhaps start to think about writing Python programs for more than one
> processor.

The language features look a lot like what others have already been
offering for a while: keywords for parallelised constructs (clik_for)
which are employed by solutions for various languages (C# and various C
++ libraries spring immediately to mind); spawning and synchronisation
are typically supported in existing Python solutions, although
obviously not using language keywords. The more interesting aspects of
the referenced technology seem to be hyperobjects which, as far as I
can tell, are shared global objects, along with the way the work
actually gets distributed and scheduled - something which would
require slashing through the white paper aspects of the referenced
site and actually reading the academic papers associated with the
work.

I've considered doing something like hyperobjects for a while, and
this does fit in somewhat with recent discussions about shared memory
and managing contention for that resource using the communications
channels found in, amongst other solutions, the pprocess module. I
currently have no real motivation to implement this myself, however.

Paul