Terry Reedy wrote:
One criterion for adding a new module is a constituency of users. One thing that would help the Stackless in Python cause is more evidence
it is useful in practice as well as in theory and expectation. Even today, the only thing I can find on the site is " Stackless has impressive applications, like: a.. Eve, an online massive multiplayer game by CCP Games b.. ? by Iron Port " Eve was listed two years ago and ? does not say much. I went to the Eve site, downloaded several videos, and from what was presented, was impressed negatively, so it is not obviously to me an advertisement for Stackless. So other examples, less costly to try out, might be more persuasive.
Why did you do that?
Do what? Accept the invitation to follow the posted link to the new Stackless site to learn more about Stackless today? Click on the Wiki link and read? Click on the included link to the one and only listed example application? Among other things, I looked to see if there were currently a free trial period for Eve, as there sometines is for online games. If I were to try it, and it ran smoothly for some time without lags and crashes (which I have experience of), then that would suggest that the tools (including Stackless) and use thereof were adequate to the task. If not, that something (though not necessarily Stackless) would be shown lacking.
Would you download and try Zope, in order to judge about Python?
Given that you seem to be trying to ridicule sensible behavior, it is ironic that you should pick that particular example. In fact, several years ago, Zope (perhaps by its earlier name) was touted as Python's 'killer application'. At least a few people said something like 'To see Python in action, go visit the Python/Zope powered Zope site.' Which I (and others) did. And it appears that others went further and downloaded Zope to try on their own systems. A year or two ago, the Zope site listed Plone as an example of Zope in action. I followed the link to its site and signed up for one of the free demo accounts.
Would you say C is a bad language, because you (perhaps) don't like Perl?
The issue is performance, not liking. In any case, the proof of C was Unix, 30 years ago. I switched from Fortran to C in 80/81, long before Perl existed. However, if Perl were the only available example application for C, then yes, trying it out would one sensible way to evaluate C.
Last time I disliked a movie, I really thought celluloid is a bad idea.
If there were a celluloid movie development site that listed exacly one celluloid movie and either its price to watch were too much for me and the free stills unimpressive, or its *technical* performance crummy, then I would consider its technical virtue unproven. But that is not the case.
To me, there is only one example. I don't count '?'. But perhaps you know something you can't post.
are shown to prove that Stackless has industrial strength, nothing else.
Your biased-by-parenthood assertion is not proof to most people. The mere existence of Eve is not proof. A positive evaluation of its technical performance would be evidence. To paraphrase my original second sentence: if you want me to see that Stackless has industrial strength, show me more evidence. Terry J. Reedy