Re: Prothon on CPython intrepreter? [PROTHON]

Christian Tismer wrote:

> Mark Hahn wrote:
>
> > I've been meaning to talk to you about this.  I didn't know that
"stackless
> > python" is actually an entire version of the Python interpreter.  What
do
> > you think of the idea of my implementing Prothon on top of stackless?
>
> Fine with me; at least I don't think Stackless will
> be a major problem. But of course I have a non-trivial patch
> to the whole distribution, because of the soft-switching
> support, which cannot be done without modifying the
> interpreter.

So you are saying I could use any Python version and apply your "non-trivial
patch" to make it "stackless Python"?  This may be the way to go so I could
start with the latest Python.

> For the other part: implementing all the Prothon differences,
> and especially getting rid of the GIL, I don't know
> how much all the existing stuff will be a show-stopper.
> Evething is implemented in exactly the way you never wanted
> it. Does this mean you give up on lots of ideas, or make
> compromises at every end?

I would give up on the minimum number of ideas to make this work.  I would
have to give up OS native threads and use your threads.  I would probably
give up on object locking.  The idea is to make the CPython C extensions
work with Prothon.

> On the one hand, I like the idea. On the other hand, .net
> sucks probably in many respects, but you still have all
> the freedom for Prothon. Depending on the Python core,
> too, if you throw 90 percent out. But then why.

The idea is to work my way into the ultimate Prothon intrepreter slowly.
First I would have CPython, then I would have .Net, then I would have my own
interpreter.  The reason I would do this is so I would have a library and
users right away.  I would rather have a Prothon that is partially complete
that is being used than a great Prothon with no one using it.  I would be
careful to not compromise Prothon.  I would make sure that the missing parts
could be added in later versions.

> Maybe I'm too negative here.
> Yeah, you can use the stackless interpreter and add
> opcodes, and makes some behave differently. You loose
> almost all other Python objects.

I don't know what you  mean.  What objects would I lose?  I can't lose any
objects that the C extensions need.