> There seem to be a lot of naysayers in the comments about removing the GIL.
That's because it's been attempted over and over and over again. And each time it ends up failing due to the decrease in single-threaded performance (the bevy of necessary memory mutexes aren't free)), and the extensive amount of work required to make all of the standard libraries threadsafe.
I don't buy the $50,000 cost for a second. Sure, you might be able to safely change the interpreter for that little money, but you couldn't fix up performance and the standard library for that.
Simplicity of implementation and single threaded speed seem to be, well, implementation issues. Nonetheless, they are reasonable doubts about the project. However, my comment was mostly aimed at the other commenters who were saying multiprocessing suffices for parallel workloads - that came off as dismissive for the reasons I mentioned above.
That's because it's been attempted over and over and over again. And each time it ends up failing due to the decrease in single-threaded performance (the bevy of necessary memory mutexes aren't free)), and the extensive amount of work required to make all of the standard libraries threadsafe.
I don't buy the $50,000 cost for a second. Sure, you might be able to safely change the interpreter for that little money, but you couldn't fix up performance and the standard library for that.