Stackless python + official python ?
Pekka Niiranen
I started wondering if there are any plans to merge his efforts to
official
Python release ?
Or is it too late because user and application base of the language are
allready so wide that pure engineering decisions for the language
development
are impossible ?
-pekka-
Martin v. Loewis
> After reading "Continuations and Stackless Python" by Christian
> Tismer I started wondering if there are any plans to merge his
> efforts to official Python release ?
Not at the moment, no.
> Or is it too late because user and application base of the language
> are allready so wide that pure engineering decisions for the
> language development are impossible ?
No. The previous implementation of Stackless Python was unacceptable
for integration in the "official Python release", because the code was
essentially unmaintainable. Christian has since abandoned this
approach and started all over again; the new code is not yet complete
enough for inclusion.
Regards,
Martin
Michael Hudson
> After reading "Continuations and Stackless Python" by Christian
> Tismer I started wondering if there are any plans to merge his
> efforts to official Python release ?
Not at present, I believe.
> Or is it too late because user and application base of the language
> are allready so wide that pure engineering decisions for the
> language development are impossible ?
The original implementation was too intrusive and baroque to be
considered (albeit an amazing bit of work). The current one relies on
assembly tricks; it's unlikely that such things would be tolerated in
the core.
For much more on the subject, feel free to hit google.
Cheers,
M.
--
-Dr. Olin Shivers,
Ph.D., Cranberry-Melon School of Cucumber Science
-- seen in comp.lang.scheme
Cameron Laird
Michael Hudson <m...@python.net> wrote:
>Pekka Niiranen <kris...@vip.fi> writes:
>
>> After reading "Continuations and Stackless Python" by Christian
>> Tismer I started wondering if there are any plans to merge his
>> efforts to official Python release ?
>
>Not at present, I believe.
>
>> Or is it too late because user and application base of the language
>> are allready so wide that pure engineering decisions for the
>> language development are impossible ?
>
>The original implementation was too intrusive and baroque to be
>considered (albeit an amazing bit of work). The current one relies on
>assembly tricks; it's unlikely that such things would be tolerated in
>the core.
>
>For much more on the subject, feel free to hit google.
.
.
Let me say this a different way: Christian, and
even more than he, several of the Stackless users,
pushed *hard* to move Stackless into the core Py-
thon distribution. At one time last year, I
sincerely believed that a substantial part of
Stackless would appear in a 2.1 or so release.
Guido was reluctant all along; more precisely, he
had specific and important reservations. Eventu-
ally, Christian backed Stackless out of 2.x
development. I don't think he's particularly on
a trajectory to bring it back to the core distri-
bution.
Maybe Guido'll decide Stackless belongs in. Maybe
Christian will decide he wants to do whatever is
necessary to get Stackless in. More likely, I
think, is that Christian continues to maintain
Stackless as an alternate implementation.
--
Cameron Laird <Cam...@Lairds.com>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
Michael Chermside
> Maybe Guido'll decide Stackless belongs in. Maybe
> Christian will decide he wants to do whatever is
> necessary to get Stackless in. More likely, I
> think, is that Christian continues to maintain
> Stackless as an alternate implementation.
I would just like to point out that NOT integrating Stackless into the
main Python distribution is NOT NECESSARILY BAD! It is also doesn't
necessarily reflect poorly on Christian or Guido.
It might make a LOT of sense to have TWO distributions, one which is
INCREDIBLY platform-independent, and one of which has some VERY advanced
and powerful multi-threading capabilities. To merge them would result in
loss or weakening of one (or both!) of those features -- a real shame.
But having BOTH distributions satisfies EVERYONE. It might be a good
idea to distribute stackless from the main Python.org site (although I
don't think Christian is ready for that right this moment given where he
is in the re-write). It might be a good idea to work hard at keeping the
distributions up-to-date (ie, when 2.4.2 comes out for c-python it is
followed immediately (or simultaneously) with stackless 2.4.2. But we
don't have to merge Stackless into the main c-python distribution in
order to promote it... we can simply promote BOTH as closely-related
solutions to slightly different problems.
-- Michael Chermside
Christian Tismer
> [discussion of Stackless being accepted into the main Python distrib]
Cameron Laird wrote:
>> Maybe Guido'll decide Stackless belongs in. Maybe
>> Christian will decide he wants to do whatever is
>> necessary to get Stackless in. More likely, I
>> think, is that Christian continues to maintain
>> Stackless as an alternate implementation.
Exactly. Neither the old "sorcery" solution, nor the
new "assembly" solutions (just 5 lines) are likely
to get accepted. They are both work-arounds to
the fact that Python would need a complete re-design
of its innards to become stackless without "tricks".
It is Python that forces me to do strange things
in order to achieve my goal.
Anyway, the new version *might* get a way into the
distribution as a compiler option, since the
patches are very small, and they can be turned off
for unsupported platforms.
> I would just like to point out that NOT integrating Stackless into the
> main Python distribution is NOT NECESSARILY BAD! It is also doesn't
> necessarily reflect poorly on Christian or Guido.
>
> It might make a LOT of sense to have TWO distributions, one which is
> INCREDIBLY platform-independent, and one of which has some VERY advanced
> and powerful multi-threading capabilities. To merge them would result in
> loss or weakening of one (or both!) of those features -- a real shame.
In general, two versions do make sense.
On a given platform which is supported, it doesn't make
sense, since you only get more, Stackless won't do
anything less or perform poorer.
The only drawback is the problem of incompatible
Python software when using the multi-threading features.
This is now suddenly platform dependant.
But I'm confident that unsupported platforms will be
turned into the empty set, quickly.
> But having BOTH distributions satisfies EVERYONE. It might be a good
> idea to distribute stackless from the main Python.org site (although I
> don't think Christian is ready for that right this moment given where he
> is in the re-write). It might be a good idea to work hard at keeping the
> distributions up-to-date (ie, when 2.4.2 comes out for c-python it is
> followed immediately (or simultaneously) with stackless 2.4.2. But we
> don't have to merge Stackless into the main c-python distribution in
> order to promote it... we can simply promote BOTH as closely-related
> solutions to slightly different problems.
It isn't necessary any longer to work hard to keep up
with the current Python release boom. There are only
a few places where some code is inserted. Most of the
patches can be done via CVS merge automagically.
And this is only one process for each Python version.
The platform specific assembly is hidden inside of
Stackless and totally unrelated to Python.
The basic implementation has already been done and works.
What gave mea six week procrustination was the fact
that I decided to change the user interface drastically:
Away from too-powerful, too-complicated to understand
continuations, towards most easy-to-use tasklets
together with channels for task communication.
Finally, this will enable CSP programming for Python,
IMHO the state-of-the-art of concurrent programming.
I had to learn what this is and how it works, and
to find a layout useful for Python.
I'm nearly there now, and there will be an alpha release
next week.
cheers - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tis...@tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 pager +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
Greg Ewing
>
> What gave mea six week procrustination was the fact
What an amazingly good word! I wonder what it
means -- Procrustean procrastination?
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand
To get my email address, please visit my web page:
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg
Christian Tismer
> Christian Tismer wrote:
>
>>What gave mea six week procrustination was the fact
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> What an amazingly good word! I wonder what it
> means -- Procrustean procrastination?
Oops -- I used dict.leo.org to find it, but mistyped it :)