this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
512 points (96.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

25671 readers
2299 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lime@feddit.nu 145 points 4 months ago (43 children)

all programs are single threaded unless otherwise specified.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 23 points 4 months ago (20 children)

Does Python have the ability to specify loops that should be executed in parallel, as e.g. Matlab uses parfor instead of for?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 50 points 4 months ago (10 children)

python has way too many ways to do that. asyncio, future, thread, multiprocessing...

[–] danhab99@programming.dev 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I've always hated object oriented multi threading. Goroutines (green threads) are just the best way 90% of the time. If I need to control where threads go I'll write it in rust.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

nothing about any of those libraries dictates an OO approach.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 4 months ago

Meh, even Java has decent FP paradigm support these days. Just because you can do everything in an OO way in Java doesn't mean you need to.

[–] danhab99@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If I have to put a thread object in a variable and call a method on it to start it then it's OO multi threading. I don't want to know when the thread spawns, I don't want to know what code it's running, and I don't want to know when it's done. I just want shit to happen at the same time (90% of the time)

[–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 4 months ago

the thread library is aping the posix thread interface with python semantics.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (39 replies)