Re: Threads across programming languages

paavo512 <paavo@osa.pri.ee> wrote or quoted:
|Anyway, multithreading performance is a non-issue for Python so far as
|the Python interpreter runs in a single-threaded regime anyway, under a
|global GIL lock. They are planning to get rid of GIL, but this work is
|still in development AFAIK. I'm sure it will take years to stabilize the
|whole Python zoo without GIL.
    The GIL only prevents multiple Python statements from being
   interpreted simultaneously, but if you're waiting on inputs (like
   sockets), it's not active, so that could be distributed across
   multiple cores.
    With asyncio, however, you can easily handle the application
   for threads to "wait in parallel" for thousands of sockets in a
   single thread, and there are fewer opportunities for errors than
   with multithreading.
    Additionally, there are libraries like numpy that use true
   multithreading internally to distribute computational tasks
   across multiple cores. By using such libraries, you can take
   advantage of that. (Not to mention the AI libraries that have their
   work done in highly parallel fashion by graphics cards.)
    If you want real threads, you could probably work with Cython
   sometimes.
    Other languages like JavaScript seem to have an advantage there
   because they don't know a GIL, but with JavaScript, for example,
   it's because it always runs in a single thread overall. And in
   the languages where there are threads without a GIL, you quickly
   realize that programming correct non-trivial programs with
   parallel processing is error-prone.