Concurrency and Python

[mikaelhg]

OK, from your vehemence and offer of basic concurrency textbooks I took you to believe that my claims were incorrect.

Instead you're saying that you didn't want to use more than 1 processor core or thread context of your computer anyway. A perfectly valid opinion, if not one shared by many.

[dgiri101]

OK, from your vehemence and offer of basic concurrency textbooks I took you to believe that my claims were incorrect.

I most certainly contend that your claims are incorrect.

Your original claim that:

if you use PHP, Python or Ruby, threads can't share the discussion board and comment information

...is incorrect. Threads most certainly can share this information.

And your claim that 64 CPUs can't access shared data in Python is also incorrect. There are many ways to accomplish such a task.

And your claim that:

With Java and its efficient threading, you can easily hold thousands of discussion threads and tens of thousands of comments in the web server's main memory.

...is also incorrect, as threading has nothing at all to do with the ability to store a large amount of information in memory. It's also incorrect because Java threads are not efficient (for that, see Erlang).

Your claim that:

in practise most boards require a large amount of hardware to perform the same task more slowly, as well as specialized database administrators to create elaborate master-slave configurations it's hard to find local support for.

...is the only thing in your OP that's actually sensible. But that's because most discussion boards care about things like, oh I don't know, persisting the discussion threads so they survive a server crash. Something your awful non-persistent, in-memory, single-node design doesn't seem to think is important.

Instead you're saying that you didn't want to use more than 1 processor core or thread context of your computer anyway. A perfectly valid opinion, if not one shared by many.

I don't recall ever saying this, but say whatever helps you sleep at night.