multi-threading

If your application must be multi-threaded, it does make sense to write it in a language with proper multi-threading support.

Most of my painful memories relate to: multi-threading, timezones (bloody timezones), migration a system from A to B tech (i.e.

During years this was a big issue in Java, and why it really needed multi-threading.

There are many ways to exploit multi-cores, multi-threading is just one of them.

The whole point of having multi-threading is to be able to write compact, shared-memory code with minimal use of synchronization operators, and sharing as much code and data as possible.

It sounds a little bit to me like you're re-inventing the wheel - multi-threading means you don't have to go to the pains of breaking your long-running tasks up into pieces, the infrastructure takes care of that for you.

Well, then one would have implemented a GC by hand with worse performance, specially in multi-threading contexts, unless there is someone on the team expert in hazard pointers and related performance tricks.

The goal fine grained parallelism python (fgpp) must be to improve the speed of code for which fat parallelism (user conconcted error prone 'multi-threading' or message passing) doesn't gain much, and for which calling out to an impl in another language or specialised library has overhead or doesn't make sense.

This article, and those like it, all state that the problem with multi-threading and synchronization is inherent to the programing paradigm/language/architecture you're using: > "Buggy multi-threaded code creates race conditions, which are the most dangerous and time-consuming class of bugs in software" > "because the traditional synchronization primitives are inadequate for large-scale systems." Ok.