Re: Threads across programming languages

On 5/2/2024 4:15 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 2 May 2024 13:28:15 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
 

On 5/1/2024 10:39 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
On Wed, 1 May 2024 22:20:47 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>

On 5/1/2024 1:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

Remember, we’re talking about maximizing I/O throughput here, so CPU
is not the bottleneck.

>
It can be if your thread synchronization scheme is sub par.

>
Another reason to avoid threads.

>
Why? Believe it or not, there are ways to create _highly_ scalable
thread synchronization schemes.

 I’m sure there are. But none of that is relevant when the CPU isn’t the
bottleneck anyway.

The CPU can become a bottleneck. Depends on how the programmer implements things.

So long as your async tasks have an await call somewhere in their main
loops, that should be sufficient to avoid most bottlenecks.

>
async tasks are using threads... No?

 No. They are built on coroutines. Specifically, the “stackless” variety.
 <https://gitlab.com/ldo/python_topics_notebooks/-/blob/master/Generators%20&%20Coroutines.ipynb?ref_type=heads>

So, there is no way to take advantage of multiple threads on Python? Heck, even JavaScript has WebWorkers... ;^)