Re: Stackless Integration

Discussion in 'Python' started by Jean-Paul Calderone, Aug 9, 2007.

  1. On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <> wrote:
    >Hi,
    >
    >I've been looking at stackless python a little bit, and it's awesome.
    >My question is, why hasn't it been integrated into the upstream python
    >tree? Does it cause problems with the current C-extensions? It seems
    >like if something is fully compatible and better, then it would be
    >adopted. However, it hasn't been in what appears to be 7 years of
    >existence, so I assume there's a reason.


    It's not Pythonic.

    Jean-Paul
    Jean-Paul Calderone, Aug 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jean-Paul Calderone a écrit :
    > On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <>
    > wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I've been looking at stackless python a little bit, and it's awesome.
    >> My question is, why hasn't it been integrated into the upstream python
    >> tree? Does it cause problems with the current C-extensions? It seems
    >> like if something is fully compatible and better, then it would be
    >> adopted. However, it hasn't been in what appears to be 7 years of
    >> existence, so I assume there's a reason.

    >
    > It's not Pythonic.


    Hum... Yes ? Really ? Care to argument ?
    Bruno Desthuilliers, Aug 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jean-Paul Calderone

    Steve Holden Guest

    Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
    > Jean-Paul Calderone a écrit :
    >> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <>
    >> wrote:
    >>> Hi,
    >>>
    >>> I've been looking at stackless python a little bit, and it's awesome.
    >>> My question is, why hasn't it been integrated into the upstream python
    >>> tree? Does it cause problems with the current C-extensions? It seems
    >>> like if something is fully compatible and better, then it would be
    >>> adopted. However, it hasn't been in what appears to be 7 years of
    >>> existence, so I assume there's a reason.

    >> It's not Pythonic.

    >
    > Hum... Yes ? Really ? Care to argument ?


    Unfortunately such arguments quickly descend to the "yes it is", "no it
    isn't" level, as there is no objective measure of Pythonicity.

    Twisted is a complex set of packages which is difficult to understand
    from the outside,and is motivated by a specific approach to asynchronous
    operations that is neither well understood by the majority of
    programmers nor easily-explained to them. All the teaching sessions on
    Twisted I have attended have involved a certain amount of hand-waving or
    some over-heavy code examples with inadequate explanations.

    However I would say that Twisted has improve enormously over the last
    five years, and should really be a candidate for inclusion in the
    standard library. It would be a large component, though, and so there
    would be a number of heavy tasks involved, not least of them updating
    the documentation. So maintenance might be a worry unless a group stood
    up and committed to the task.

    regards
    Steve
    --
    Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
    Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
    Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
    --------------- Asciimercial ------------------
    Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag the Internet
    Many services currently offer free registration
    ----------- Thank You for Reading -------------
    Steve Holden, Aug 9, 2007
    #3
  4. Jean-Paul Calderone

    Steve Holden Guest

    Steve Holden wrote:
    > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
    >> Jean-Paul Calderone a écrit :
    >>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> Hi,
    >>>>
    >>>> I've been looking at stackless python a little bit, and it's awesome.
    >>>> My question is, why hasn't it been integrated into the upstream python
    >>>> tree? Does it cause problems with the current C-extensions? It seems
    >>>> like if something is fully compatible and better, then it would be
    >>>> adopted. However, it hasn't been in what appears to be 7 years of
    >>>> existence, so I assume there's a reason.
    >>> It's not Pythonic.

    >> Hum... Yes ? Really ? Care to argument ?

    >
    > Unfortunately such arguments quickly descend to the "yes it is", "no it
    > isn't" level, as there is no objective measure of Pythonicity.
    >
    > Twisted [...]
    >

    Oops, did I say Twisted? When I last heard Chris Tismer talking about
    Stackless someone in the audience asked him about the prospects of
    incorporating Stackless into the core and he suggested he didn't
    necessarily think of that as a desirable change.

    I would like to see it in the core, but integration would not be an easy
    task, and maintenance might be problematic.

    regards
    Steve
    --
    Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
    Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
    Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
    --------------- Asciimercial ------------------
    Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag the Internet
    Many services currently offer free registration
    ----------- Thank You for Reading -------------
    Steve Holden, Aug 9, 2007
    #4
  5. Steve Holden a écrit :
    > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
    >> Jean-Paul Calderone a écrit :
    >>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> Hi,
    >>>>
    >>>> I've been looking at stackless python a little bit, and it's awesome.
    >>>> My question is, why hasn't it been integrated into the upstream python
    >>>> tree? Does it cause problems with the current C-extensions? It seems
    >>>> like if something is fully compatible and better, then it would be
    >>>> adopted. However, it hasn't been in what appears to be 7 years of
    >>>> existence, so I assume there's a reason.
    >>> It's not Pythonic.

    >>
    >> Hum... Yes ? Really ? Care to argument ?

    >
    > Unfortunately such arguments quickly descend to the "yes it is", "no it
    > isn't" level, as there is no objective measure of Pythonicity.


    indeed !-)

    But that doesn't prevent from honestly trying to explain why one asserts
    such a thing - which Jean-Paul did in another post in this thread.

    > Twisted is a complex set of packages


    Sure. Now I may be dumb, but I thought it was about stackless, not about
    Twisted...
    Bruno Desthuilliers, Aug 10, 2007
    #5
  6. Bruno Desthuilliers a écrit :
    > Steve Holden a écrit :

    (snip)
    >> Twisted is a complex set of packages

    >
    > Sure. Now I may be dumb, but I thought it was about stackless, not about
    > Twisted...


    Sorry, didn't saw your other post.
    Bruno Desthuilliers, Aug 10, 2007
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. TheDustbustr

    stackless python: continuation module?

    TheDustbustr, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    453
    Christian Tismer
    Aug 6, 2003
  2. Christian Tismer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    305
    Christian Tismer
    Aug 14, 2003
  3. Christian Tismer

    Zope 2.7 running with Stackless 3.0

    Christian Tismer, Aug 28, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    315
    Christian Tismer
    Aug 28, 2003
  4. Shane Hathaway
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    317
    Michael Hudson
    Aug 29, 2003
  5. Justin T.

    Stackless Integration

    Justin T., Aug 9, 2007, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    280
    Terry Reedy
    Aug 10, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page