[Stackless] Event-based scheduling
phoenix at burninglabs.com
Wed Feb 13 22:37:06 CET 2008
I'm always amazed at how *more educated* programmers complain that Stackless
confusing or difficult to adapt to. It seems so simple and elegant to my
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... ;-)
130 'A' Street
On Feb 13, 2008 1:17 PM, Arnar Birgisson <arnarbi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > 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,
> > semaphore, I mean semaphores working with the µthreads, not necessarily
> > 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.
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Stackless