[Stackless] Event-based scheduling

Phoenix Sol phoenix at burninglabs.com
Wed Feb 13 22:37:06 CET 2008


I'm always amazed at how *more educated* programmers complain that Stackless
is
confusing or difficult to adapt to. It seems so simple and elegant to my
*self-educated*
mind. I'm feeling rather happy right now to be ignorant of traditional
threads, semaphores, etc...

Thanks for that, Laurent!  =)

(Now if I could just find a job... ;-)

-- 
Phoenix Sol
541-646-8612
130 'A' Street
Ashland, Oregon
97520

On Feb 13, 2008 1:17 PM, Arnar Birgisson <arnarbi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Laurent,
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 9:05 PM, Laurent Debacker <debackerl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't understand why the implementation forces me to use channels, if
> I do
> > not need to 'transfer' data. You use the channel as a semaphore. I would
> > think that it is better to implement semaphore, and then implement
> channels
> > based on semaphores. Of course, it makes sense for coroutines exchanging
> > data, but there is cases where no data need to be transfered. Of course,
> by
> > semaphore, I mean semaphores working with the µthreads, not necessarily
> the
> > ones of the kernel. I implemented the latter a while ago in C#.
>
> Channels in Stackless are extremely light-weight, and yes - they are
> often used just for tasklet synchronization (as semaphores). In this
> case, just send "None" and discard the result from receive. No need
> for another construct (semaphores) to complicate matters.
>
> cheers,
> Arnar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.stackless.com/pipermail/stackless/attachments/20080213/3da38aa3/attachment.htm>


More information about the Stackless mailing list