Goless: Go-like semantics built on top of Stackless Python
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Goless: Go-like semantics built on top of Stackless Python
#2IIRC stackless python implemented microthreads and channels before go existed - thats the whole point of stackless python - so whats the benefit here on top of that?
http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Tasklets http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Channels
Re: Goless: Go-like semantics built on top of Stackless Python
#3IIRC stackless python implemented microthreads and channels before go existed - thats the whole point of stackless python - so whats the benefit here on top of that? http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Tasklets http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Channels
I was wondering the same thing.
Re: Goless: Go-like semantics built on top of Stackless Python
#4IIRC stackless python implemented microthreads and channels before go existed - thats the whole point of stackless python - so whats the benefit here on top of that? http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Tasklets http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Channels
"microthreads", channels, and the select statement predate go at least by a couple of decades in Alef, Plan9's libthread, Limbo, Newsqueak, etc.
Re: Goless: Go-like semantics built on top of Stackless Python
#5IIRC stackless python implemented microthreads and channels before go existed - thats the whole point of stackless python - so whats the benefit here on top of that? http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Tasklets http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Channels
It looks like the goal of the project is mostly to adopt the syntax of Go. Instead of using gevent, Greenlets, Coroutines, etc.. they use "goroutines"..
Re: Goless: Go-like semantics built on top of Stackless Python
#6IIRC stackless python implemented microthreads and channels before go existed - thats the whole point of stackless python - so whats the benefit here on top of that? http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Tasklets http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Channels
People keep thinking that Go routines and channels are something new.
Re: Goless: Go-like semantics built on top of Stackless Python
#7IIRC stackless python implemented microthreads and channels before go existed - thats the whole point of stackless python - so whats the benefit here on top of that? http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Tasklets http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Channels
Stackless Python isn't a simple out of the box framework, it's a basic set of primitives. New users have to overcome many of the same problems. Using a framework above Stackless, is a huge aid in gaining the benefits which the Stackless primitives provides. Only in the later years, has 'stacklesslib' been created to formalise some of the standard practises in a higher level framework.
The benefits to new frameworks based on Stackless are obvious if you use Stackless.
Re: Goless: Go-like semantics built on top of Stackless Python
#8IIRC stackless python implemented microthreads and channels before go existed - thats the whole point of stackless python - so whats the benefit here on top of that? http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Tasklets http://www.stackless.com/wiki/Channels
People keep thinking that Go routines and channels are something new.
They are something new. They're a solid more approachable packaged solution which includes them in a form more available to the general programmer. And popularised by Google.
Yes, these things have been used in the past. No-one denies that, and there are copious references where Stackless was based on Limbo. Every time something new comes up which uses old technology, there's always those who have to assume it means that it insults the old adopters in some way. Or that fealty has to be paid to the old adopters. At some level this becomes tiresome and unhelpful.
Re: Goless: Go-like semantics built on top of Stackless Python
#9I'm pleasantly surprised to see pypy beat go by an order of magnitude in the select_default benchmarks. Could it be a bug, or is it real?
Re: Goless: Go-like semantics built on top of Stackless Python
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
People keep thinking that Go routines and channels are something new.
They are something new. They're a solid more approachable packaged solution which includes them in a form more available to the general programmer. And popularised by Google. Yes, these things have been used in the past. No-one denies that, and there are copious references where Stackless was based on Limbo. Every time something new comes up which uses old technology, there's always those who have to assume it means…
> At some level this becomes tiresome and unhelpful.
It would help, if those promoting the new old technology would present it as bringing back something from the past, instead of a magic new technology.