Re: stackless implementation (was Re: New stacklessproposal)

Christian Tismer wrote:

> Where I want to go is CSP, C. A. Hoare.
> ---------------------------------------
> (But I'm not talking about this now. later...)

Hmm.  I just downloaded the book.  I'll give it a read.

> Anyway, my language has to do its best to mediate between
> simplicity and power. And I love to have really unlimited, simple
> recursion on the application level. Therefore, I'm trying my best to
> make interpreted languages behave as "natural" as possible.
> While recursion on the interperter level is no problem (unless
> you are Guido who even doesn't recognize what problem he is creating),
> we are taking all the problems into the implementation language, for
> them.
>
> The bad thing is that this implementation language suffers from
> the same paradigm, and that really hurts. I have to adopt crazy
> schemes (compare some earlier messages) just to make the best use
> of the inherent stack optimizations. And the processor is forced
> to do this. It would certainly not if it were asked, poor CPU.
>
> Oh well, sorry about this lengthy excursion.

No I really enjoy it.  I wish we had talked about this stuff before I
started Prothon.

Sometime I'd like to hear what your plans are for stackless.

> I just wanted to say: If you think you want to have light-weight
> threading, then this is a nice thing which can give new insights
> to your users. It will probably not happen immediately, and it
> will not be a primary selling point. Getting stackless ideas
> through the brains and into the industry, and teaching them that
> there is much more possible than to switch from a simple program
> to an overly complex (threaded) one, will probably take us
> another decade.

Making it easy to use in a familiar languge that is like Python will help.
We will be doing our part to promote it.

The world needs things like Occam to promote advanced concepts but it also
needs practical things like Prothon that are evolutionary steps in the right
direction.

The feedback in c.l.p. about Prothon has been getting more positive lately.
I think they are realizing that I am not out to ruin Python and that Prothon
is for real.  Instead of just saying "Prothon sucks", they are saying they'd
like to use Prothon if it had libraries.

> But it makes sense, and you have my full support, after I failed
> so badly with Python, by now.

You didn't fail, Python did.