I can't think of any kind of C extension tooling that would fix Python's
parallelism problem.
The only parallelism problem Python has is convincing people it doesn't have a parallelism problem. As Guido has stated, Python has been used on 64K core supercomputers. There is no parallelism problem.
I'm not sure what hoops one has to jump through to make Python run in parallel (without actively degrading performance, anyway), but one might say that having to jump through hoops constitutes a parallelism problem. Anyway, last time I went down the Python parallelization road, I got a lot of snark about how Python is easy to parallelize, but no one offered any performant parallel solutions. Feel free to share the link about the Python on 64K-core computer; Google isn't turning anything up.
The only parallelism problem Python has is convincing people it doesn't have a parallelism problem. As Guido has stated, Python has been used on 64K core supercomputers. There is no parallelism problem.
weberc2 10 points · Jan 2017
I'm not sure what hoops one has to jump through to make Python run in parallel (without actively degrading performance, anyway), but one might say that having to jump through hoops constitutes a parallelism problem. Anyway, last time I went down the Python parallelization road, I got a lot of snark about how Python is easy to parallelize, but no one offered any performant parallel solutions. Feel free to share the link about the Python on 64K-core computer; Google isn't turning anything up.
alcalde 1 points · Jan 2017
https://youtu.be/EBRMq2Ioxsc?t=34m38s
youtubefactsbot 1 points · Jan 2017
bot info