Re: Does Python Need Virtual Threads? (Posting On Python-List Prohibited)

Concerning virtual threads the only problem
with Java I have is, that JDK 17 doesn't have them.
And some linux distributions are stuck with JDK 17.

Otherwise its not an idea that belongs solely
to Java, I think golang pioniered them with their
goroutines. I am planning to use them more heavily

when they become more widely available, and I don't
see any principle objection that Python wouldn't
have them as well. It would make async I/O based

on async waithing for a thread maybe more lightweight.
But this would be only important if you have a high
number of tasks.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro schrieb:
> Short answer: no.
> 
> <https://discuss.python.org/t/add-virtual-threads-to-python/91403>
> 
> Firstly, anybody appealing to Java as an example of how to design a
> programming language should immediately be sending your bullshit detector
> into the yellow zone.
> 
> Secondly, the link to a critique of JavaScript that dates from 2015, from
> before the language acquired its async/await constructs, should be another
> warning sign.
> 
> Looking at that Java spec, a “virtual thread” is just another name for
> “stackful coroutine”. Because that’s what you get when you take away
> implicit thread preemption and substitute explicit preemption instead.
> 
> The continuation concept is useful in its own right. Why not concentrate
> on implementing that as a new primitive instead?
>