News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ruby 2.6. Parent comment

Re:Ruby 2.6 by viraptor on Tuesday December 25, 2018 @08:00AM (#18757236)
Is it really a "choice" if the alternative is really hard to achieve in practice? It's like calling python's GIL a choice... with numerous projects trying to get rid of it in various ways and never really succeeding to do it while keeping the single threaded performance and the extensions API.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ruby 2.6 by pjmlp on Tuesday December 25, 2018 @08:25AM (#18757309)
It is a choice to keep backwards compatibility with the C extensions API.

The GIL would be quite easy to replace otherwise.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ruby 2.6 by jashmatthews on Wednesday December 26, 2018 @01:19AM (#18760914)
> It is a choice to keep backwards compatibility with the C extensions API.

IIUC for CRuby it's mostly about how to keep the VM simple. Koichi Sasada is working on an ownership based model like Erlang has, which sidesteps a bunch of theses issues.

[ Parent | on HN ]