[Stackless] Re: Stackless Python is DEAD!

Jacob Gorm Hansen jg at ioi.dk
Sat Jan 19 14:46:16 CET 2002

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:43:11PM -0800, Donn Cave wrote:
> Quoth Christian Tismer <tismer at tismer.com>:
> ...
> | What do you mean by acceptable?
> | The 95 percent of users who get their solution
> | in time will for sure accept it. Who else is relevant?
> I don't know if anyone is particularly relevant.  By acceptable,
> I mean that when programmers decide whether to pursue designs
> that depend on Stackless features, you're asking them to accept a
> severe loss of portability.  Many of them may find that unimportant,
> because as you say the majority platforms will be OK for now.  But
> I can't believe it's going to be generally acceptable.  Maybe I just
> don't want to believe it, because I think that attitude really sucks.
> Whatever, we'll see.

I think it sound interesting, don't see why the way C handles the stack must
limit what other programs (especially languages) can do. My guess is porting
these changes is to other compilers and OSes is far from imposssible. I would
love however, if Christian were to adopt a more unixy development environment,
using standard patches and a public CVS repo instead of father xmas style
grand releases, but maybe that will come, as all good things come to those who

Stackless mailing list
Stackless at www.tismer.com

More information about the Stackless mailing list