Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Does Python Need Virtual Threads? (Posting On Python-List Prohibited)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 23:23:23 +0200
Message-ID: <102kp89$q8c6$1@solani.org>
References: <102isqb$3v5j0$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 21:23:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org; logging-data="860550"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.21
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HtuGk1OdXYXEGOAa5FyQynwZ1vY=
In-Reply-To: <102isqb$3v5j0$2@dont-email.me>
X-User-ID: eJwNyskBwCAIBMCWcFeuchBD/yXEz7xGacvat6ltHR2sK3Z4shbYGHGNyMFkERkYXBUn30M2eV1anhVXKub7AS9cFMk=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:197512


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?
>