The ineffible Gordon McMillan retorts: > As a fuddy-duddy old imperative programmer, I'm inclined to think > "state machine". But I'd guess that functional-ophiles probably see > that as inelegant. (Safe guess - they see _anything_ that isn't > functional as inelegant!). As a fellow fuddy-duddy I'd agree except that if you write properlylayered software you have to unrole and rerole all those layers for every transition of the multi-level state machine, and even though with proper discipline it can be implemented without becoming hideous, it still adds significant overhead compared to "stop right here and come back later" which could be implemented using threads/coroutines(?)/continuations. I think this is particularly true in Python with the relatively high function call overhead. Or maybe I'm out in left field doing cartwheels... I guess the question of interest is why are threads insufficient? I guess they have system limitations on the number of threads or other limitations that wouldn't be a problem with continuations? If there aren't a *lot* of situations where coroutines are vital, I'd be hesitant to do major surgery. But I'm a fuddy-duddy. -- Aaron Watters === I did! I did!
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