> Soo....not the worst? :)

Yeah... I know, it's hard to imagine that there could be more than one worst. But, as I have to practice these things with my 4 year old, I become more patient with adults who don't get the concept too.

Imagine you are in a class and the teacher gives everyone a pencil and a sheet of paper. Now, you want to find out who has the shortest pencil. All students compare their pencils and turns out that there are several pencils that are of the same exact length, and those are the shortest ones at the same time. So, more than one student has the shortest pencil.

But it doesn't end there. Not all sets which define a "greater than" relationship are totally ordered. In such sets it's possible to have multiple different smallest elements. Trivially, in a set that's not ordered, every element is the smallest.

> What do you find difficult/wrong with pool executors?

Difficult? -- I don't know.

Wrong? -- Well, it's pretty worthless... does it make it wrong? -- That's up to you to decide.

The idea of threads is bad for many reasons: one in particular is of how exceptions in threads are handled. But this isn't unique to Python. Python just made a bad decision to use threads in the language that's supposed to be "safe". Python thread implementation craps its pants when dealing with many aspects of threads. For example, thread-local variables. Since threads are objects in Python, you'd expect local variables to be properties on those objects... well the mechanism to use them is just idiotic and nothing like you would expect. When it comes to interacting with "native" code from Python, you'd expect some interaction with Python's scheduler so that the native code can portion its own execution, allow Python to interrupt it etc. but there's nothing of the kind.

Even though we haven't even gotten to the pools yet, pools, obviously, don't address any of the thread-related problems. If anything, they only amplify them. Specifically, the pool from concurrent package is worse than its relative from multiprocessing package because it uses "futures". The whole idea of "futures" is somehow broken in Python because of the neverending bugs related to deadlocking. It's been repeatedly "fixed", but every now and then deadlocks still happen. Here's the latest one I know of: https://bugs.python.org/issue46464 .

I've gone once down the rabbit hole of trying to make a native module work with Python threads... there's no good way to do it, but pools, be it from concurrent.futures or from multiprocessing are both very bad for many reasons. I was hoping to be able to give users an ability to control how parallel my native code is through the tools exposed by Python already, but that turned out to be such a disaster that I've given up on the idea. Python's thread wrappers are worthless for the native code that wants to actually execute concurrently -- they are only designed to execute Python code, non-concurrently. Like I already mentioned, Python has no infrastructure to communicate to the native code its scheduling decisions, no thread-safety in memory allocation, the code is overall poorly written (as in missing const, other imprecise typing, memory-inefficient data-structures)... there are no benefits to using that vs rolling your own. Only struggle with bad decisions.