[Stackless] Interested in helping out Stackless?
richard.m.tew at gmail.com
Fri Aug 20 02:19:24 CEST 2010
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Andrew Francis <andrewfr_ice at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Some comments:
> From talking to folks at EuroPython - the separate binary is a
> big impediment. Christian was working on integrating Stackless
> with Psyco and making it a module. I am increasingly convinced
> that this is the way to go. I was thinking about learning about
> stackless through looking at the stackless transform in PyPy. I
> am interested integrating stackless with the JIT. However it seems
> the knowledge to do this in PyPy is being lost. Maybe it is
> better than I look at Psyco instead? In order to do this, I and others
> would have to be so much, not spoonfeed, but taken by the hand
> for awhile.
This theoretical taking of the hand requires someone to do it, and
there is no-one available. The only person who would be capable, is
Christian, and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not
believe he is available to do it.
If this either PyPy Stackless is to be progressed, or the Psyco
inspired module is to be developed, it will require one or more
people who do it proactively without waiting for their hand to be
taken. IMO the primary barrier to entry on either of these, and the
general maintenance work on Stackless, is time spent understanding
them and further time working on/with them - not a lack of information
or a need for help in this process.
> I met Denis at EuroPython. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to look
> at gEvent in detail so I couldn't ask pointed questions. As for libevent. Go uses libevent under the hood for its networking needs - which is a
> realistic solution. So maybe standardizing on this isn't so bad. I feel
> users don't want so much flexible choices but a firm networking solution.
I expect that what users want, if they actually want anything, is any
solution that works and is not silly. Frankly, the resource that is
required to give them this, is time and effort. If someone is willing
to do this work, then they can choose whether they want to implement
it the way that interests them, because that might increase the chance
they will stick with it and finish it.
> That is why stacklessocket is used - it solves problems. Myself, I use Twisted because I know how to integrate them and I really don't want
> to deal with low level details. Given what I have seen with generators,
> Stackless is far, far better....
Stacklessocket is a case in point. I implemented it because it
interested me to do so, I certainly didn't choose to base it on
whatever a "firm networking solution" is.
More information about the Stackless