[HN Gopher] The Python Steering Council intent to approve PEP 70...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Python Steering Council intent to approve PEP 703: making the
       GIL optional
        
       Author : pablogsal
       Score  : 58 points
       Date   : 2023-07-28 21:07 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (discuss.python.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (discuss.python.org)
        
       | mlryyc wrote:
       | [flagged]
        
         | dragonwriter wrote:
         | Approving a PEP isn't just flipping a bit, there are other
         | decisions which come with it; this is process transparency and,
         | implicitly, calling for feedback relevant to those other bits.
        
         | mkl95 wrote:
         | Considering Python is probably the most popular language ever,
         | I would say the members of the council keep a pretty low
         | profile. There are declining languages with userbases orders of
         | magnitude smaller that make the front page more often.
        
       | willm wrote:
       | I'm looking forward to a GIL-less Python. I think the SC's
       | pragmatic approach is the right one.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | frfl wrote:
       | If I remember Guido van Rossum did mention the status of the GIL
       | in one of the Lex Friedman episodes [1] he was on (it's been a
       | while, so I may be misremembering). Surprised to see a big
       | decision like this happen so quickly. Did Meta's announcement
       | play a big role in this [2]?
       | 
       | [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DVyjdw4t9I
       | 
       | [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36643670
        
         | KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
         | Removing him as BDFL was probably the best thing to have
         | happened to Python. He _never_ prioritized performance as a top
         | priority, at least not the same way Lua, JavaScript and Java
         | did. Even Ruby has a JIT now.
        
           | ambivalence wrote:
           | You know that people change their minds and now Guido is
           | working as part of a team at Microsoft that is literally
           | called "Faster CPython"?
        
         | shosca wrote:
         | Anaconda also has committed engineering resources to assist
         | with the no-GIL transition.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | tremon wrote:
       | I know they say specifically that they don't want a repeat of the
       | Python3 transition scenario, but the approach they're taking now
       | still veers eerily close to that path, at least it looks that way
       | to me.
       | 
       | A lot will depend on the Python community and the distribution
       | channels. I could see the community struggling to adopt it in a
       | timely fashion, or distributions jumping the gun (Ubuntu, Fedora,
       | Anaconda). Maybe it's too early to make hard decisions, but how
       | much control does the SC really have to avoid such a scenario?
        
         | trwsxcn wrote:
         | Yes, it will resemble the 2to3 scenario. Corporations that
         | pledge support will mechanically convert some projects
         | (pestering the actual developers or threaten with forks?), bugs
         | will be ironed out by the actual, unpaid developers over years.
         | 
         | But apparently Python needs some "success" and this makes a
         | good bullet point. Correctness does not really matter in the
         | Python world.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-07-28 23:01 UTC)