"Gordon McMillan" <gmcm at hypernet.com> wrote in message news:200406021422.42480.gmcm at hypernet.com... > Let me pop my head up for a second. Welcome ;-) > You won't see Stackless do anything (from a user's perspective) that can't be > done without Stackless[1]. > [1] Though perhaps you can do more / quicker, because of more efficient > memory usage than an implementation using threads. Except that for real-time game simulations, running smoothly without freeze-ups (and crashes) *is* experientially different, for the gamer-user, from being frozen in the middle of deadly battle, which is typically when freeze-ups occur. > Stackless (like generators) just makes some things much easier. > Basically, any state machine(s) with complex internal state (and relatively > simple events) will be much more straightforward to write in Stackless. Enought more so to lead to less bugs and/or more features (if the same time is allotted)? > I can't speak to the new Stackless, but in 2000 I did a proprietary, > commercial app for Avid that used Stackless (and lots of C extensions). It > went through Avid's QA, so it would not have been released if it crashed. OK, another success story, even if somewhat old. Terry J. Reedy
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