On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 10:56:48PM +0200, Jack Jansen wrote: > Could the defenders of Stackless Python please explain _why_ this is > such a great idea? Just and Christian seem to swear by it, but I'd > like to hear of some simple examples of programming tasks that will be > programmable in 50% less code with it (or 50% more understandable > code, for that matter). That's *continuations*, not Stackless. Stackless itself is just a way of implementing the Python bytecode eval loop with minimized use of the C stack. It doesn't change any functionality except the internal dependance on the C stack (which is limited on some platforms.) Stackless also makes a number of things possible, like continuations. Continuations can certainly reduce code, if used properly, and they can make it a lot more readable if the choice is between continuations or threaded spaghetti-code. It can, however, make code a lot less readable too, if used improperly, or when viewed by someone who doesn't grok continuations. I'm +1 on Stackless, +0 on continuations. (Continuations are cool, and Pythonic in one sense (stackframes become even firster class citizens ;) but not easy to learn or get used to.) > And, similarly, could the detractors of Stackless Python explain why > it is such a bad idea. I think my main reservation towards Stackless is the change to ceval.c, which is likely to be involved (I haven't looked at it, yet) -- but ceval.c isn't a childrens' book now, and I think the added complexity (if any) is worth the loss of some of the dependancies on the C stack. fl.0,02-ly y'rs, -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4