Idea for removing the GIL...

[Stefan Behnel]

Aahz, 01.03.2011 03:02:
> Carl Banks wrote:
>>
>> The real reason they never replaced the GIL is that fine-grained
>> locking is expensive with reference counting.  The only way the cost
>> of finer-grained locking would be acceptable, then, is if they got rid
>> of the reference counting altogether, and that was considered too
>> drastic a change.
>
> ...especially given CPython's goal of easy integration with C libraries.

+1, the GIL is much more rarely a problem than some people want to make it 
appear. Especially those who don't understand why it's there, or who fail 
to notice that threading is not the only way to do parallel processing (and 
certainly not the easiest either).

Stefan