Re: async networking (was Exploding feature set)

Paul Prescod wrote:
> Mark Hahn wrote:
>
>>>> Aside:
>>>> I like the way twisted implements networking and
>>>> protocols. This is not the same as saying I like the
>>>> twisted implementation. Whether or not we need async
>>>> networking will depend on whether prothon has the same
>>>> problems as python when it comes to threading and so
>>>> on. The separation of transport and (application)
>>>> protocol is a good idea though.
>>>
>>> actually async programming is orthogonal to threads. See dan kegels
>>> 10K page for some reading on this.
>>>
>>> (Short version: os threads @ 1 per cpu in the box, async within each
>>> thread (which can be coroutine based as an implementation), gives
>>> you greatest scalability).
>>
>>
>> With our new stackless proposal we will have both bases covered.  We
>> should make sure networking works well with both.
>
> No, I don't think so.

We should not make sure networking works well with both? :-)

We are in agreement.  I didn't mean that async IO came for free with
stackless.  i just meant that a good async IO module should work well with
our stackless.  From what I understand if we implement a good foundation
then both async and sync will work on top of it.

> Tcl also has a first-class event model:
>
> http://wiki.tcl.tk/489
> http://wiki.tcl.tk/1772
> http://wiki.tcl.tk/1527

Yes, I have heard this.  Parrot steals from TCL also.

> Prothon can't do everything but if you think you might want it to be a
> good platform for event-driven, asynch programming, it would be
> helpful to find some Twisted experts and ask them what they would
> like from a programming language by way of support.

Do you know any?  I can go to their website I guess and cold-email them.