2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters

[sturlamolden]

On Nov 4, 4:27 pm, "Andy O'Meara" <and... at gmail.com> wrote:

> People
> in the scientific and academic communities have to understand that the
> dynamics in commercial software are can be *very* different needs and
> have to show some open-mindedness there.

You are beware that BDFL's employer is a company called Google? Python
is not just used in academic settings.

Furthermore, I gave you a link to cilk++. This is a simple tool that
allows you to parallelize existing C or C++ software using three small
keywords. This is the kind of tool I believe would be useful. That is
not an academic judgement. It makes it easy to take existing software
and make it run efficiently on multicore processors.



> As other posts have gone into extensive detail, multiprocessing
> unfortunately don't handle the massive/complex data structures
> situation (see my posts regarding real-time video processing).  

That is something I don't believe. Why can't multiprocessing handle
that? Is using a proxy object out of the question? Is putting the
complex object in shared memory out of the question? Is having
multiple copies of the object out of the question (did you see my kd-
tree example)? Using multiple independent interpreters inside a
process does not make this any easier. For Christ sake, researchers
write global climate models using MPI. And you think a toy problem
like 'real-time video processing' is a show stopper for using multiple
processes.