Re: stackless implementation (was Re: New stacklessproposal)

Mark Hahn wrote:

> 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.

Then, please read Timed CSP. It has more general insight,
but needs more math. Do you come from math? :)

[ BLAAAH ]

>>Oh well, sorry about this lengthy excursion.
> 
> No I really enjoy it.  I wish we had talked about this stuff before I
> started Prothon.

This is of course what I whished, too. Not because of Prothon
or Python or Stackless or crap, just about simplicity.
I wish to make things simpler, and I fail miserably, most
of the time. A new language is a new start of thinking.

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

I want it to vanish. I want to morph Python into a language
that does not need Stackless. Stackless primary ideas should be an
implementation detail, and its consequences should be an obvious
advantage. I don't want anybody to question this, I want it
just right. That's why I'm still into PyPy, although the chances
to get EU funding are dimishing more and more.

[ conclusion: more quibbling]

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

Yes I think this is true!

> 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.

Occam is an example how to do the right thing the wrong way.
It is very open and nice on some featrues, albeit very limited
and tiny-many-chips-related on the other side. Nobody talks about
Occam, today, because chips have superseded the language.

I think, without blushing I can say something similar about Limbo,
the language for the virtual programming language of the Inferno OS.
Ideas are great, partially, the language suffers from a mixture of
high-level thoughts and low-level constructs which a modern scripting
language will simply ridicule. But channels are good, believe me :-D

> 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.

Well, then let's think of a strategy which allows to (ab)use all
of the Python linraries, which are partially great!

> You didn't fail, Python did.

I'm explicitly not elaborating here, although I know very well
what I'd like to say. (Blush, even this was not adequate)

cheers -- chris
-- 
Christian Tismer             :^)   <mailto:[email protected]>
Mission Impossible 5oftware  :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a     :    *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin                 :     PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34  home +49 30 802 86 56  mobile +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04       9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619  305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
      whom do you want to sponsor today?   http://www.stackless.com/