Keynote: Guido Van Rossum
Why Stack Overflow recommends it
Stack Overflow users link it as a primary source for Guido's own views on Python design questions such as the GIL, threads versus IO, duck typing, and PyPy.
Recommended by 2 people across 2 different months, 2012 to 2013.
What it is
Guido van Rossum's keynote at PyCon 2012, recorded as a roughly hour-long talk by the creator of Python. He discusses the state and direction of the language, including threads and the GIL, duck typing, and why PyPy was not adopted as the standard implementation.
What people said
Strong rec Thorsten Kranz · 2013-01 · Stack Overflow · on “Does this approach to Python duck-typing mixed with isinstance() make sense?”
Even though I don't want to overestimate this term, but: Your approach is not pythonic. Do duck-typing, or don't do it. If you want to be sure that your implementation of a "interface" implements everything it should: test it! For smaller projects, it's easy to remember what you need. And you can simply try it. I agree that for larger projects, or even cooperation in teams, it's better to make sure that your type has everything it needs. In such a scenario, you definitely should use unit-tests to make sure your type is complete. Even without duck-typing, you need tests, so probably you won't need any extra-tests. Guido van Rossum has talked about some interesting thoughts about duck-typing i
Recommends none · 2012-10 · Stack Overflow · on “Why wasn't PyPy included in standard Python?”
See this video by Guido van Rossum [this video] . He talks about the same question you asked at 12 min 33 secs. Highlights: lack of Python 3 compatibility lack of extension support not appropriate as glue code speed is not everything After all, he's the one to decide...
Cites poundifdef · 2012-05 · Stack Overflow · on “Are threads intended for parallel IO rather than CPU?”
In Guido Van Rossum's 2012 Pycon talk, he says the following about threads: If you use threads for what they were originally meant for, OS-level threads are meant for doing parallel IO, not for doing parallel computation. [source] [this video] Traditionally, discussions about processes-vs-threads revolve around differences between scheduling, cost of context switches, or cost of sharing resources. However, I have never learned about, or heard of, a notion that one is necessarily better than another for CPU-intensive tasks versus IO. If there is essentially a 1-1 relationship between a process and a thread (not always something you can assume), does it even matter, from a CPU-vs-IO perspective, wh
Cites Chris · 2012-09 · Stack Overflow · on “Could a C extension for multithreaded Python boost performance?”
In this keynote speech at PyCon 2012 [this video] Guido van Rossum [LINK] states that the "GIL problem" is no longer as major an issue as it once was. Before thinking about complex solutions like threaded C extensions, which will hurt the readability and maintainability of your code, verify that the GIL is actually a bottleneck in your case. I suspect that something like the standard library multiprocessing module will be sufficient, as suggested by others here.