Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > Re: Stackless Integration

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Stackless Integration

 
 
Jean-Paul Calderone
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2007
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruno Desthuilliers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2007
Jean-Paul Calderone a écrit :
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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 ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Holden
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2007
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Jean-Paul Calderone a écrit :
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> 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 -------------

 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Holden
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2007
Steve Holden wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>> Jean-Paul Calderone a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> 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 -------------

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruno Desthuilliers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2007
Steve Holden a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>> Jean-Paul Calderone a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:27 -0000, "Justin T." <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> 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...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruno Desthuilliers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2007
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stackless Integration Justin T. Python 6 08-10-2007 06:41 PM
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.7 running with Stackless 3.0 Shane Hathaway Python 2 08-29-2003 09:59 AM
Zope 2.7 running with Stackless 3.0 Christian Tismer Python 0 08-27-2003 11:55 PM
Stackless needs Jobs, Sponsorship, please help! Christian Tismer Python 0 08-14-2003 12:25 AM
stackless python: continuation module? TheDustbustr Python 2 08-06-2003 05:55 PM



Advertisments