[Python-Dev] Trial balloon: microthreads library in stdlib

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Richard Tew schrieb:
> I can't point you to the posts, but I can point you to something
> Christian has written on the subject which may indicate why
> it was never actually submitted for inclusion.
> 
> See "A Bit Of History"
> http://svn.python.org/view/stackless/trunk/Stackless/readme.txt
> 
> I have not talked to Christian about it but as the current maintainer
> of Stackless I was under the impression that there was a complete
> lack of interest in even considering it for integration.

I think this comes from a major misunderstanding of how free software
works. This is not commercial software, so there is no "company
agenda" that drives it forward. There are various contributors,
each having their own agenda; for most of us, it's "scratch your
own itches". Surely, the voices of people have varying significance
(in Python, Guido is the BDFL, for example), but "there was a complete
lack of interest in even considering" just cannot be true: clearly,
some contributors and users *were* interested.

There were surely objections to the implementation strategy, and
I also had objections to the specific execution of this
implementation strategy, see http://tinyurl.com/27v23r

Now, the question is whose "job" it would have been to integrate
Stackless to Python. Apparently, Christian tried to make it happen
(see http://tinyurl.com/3bqe5d), although I'm still uncertain
whether he ever got to a point where he said: "this is a patch,
please review it" (of that, I can find no archives, as I said).

I find it understandable that nobody else took over to work
on integrating it (although there is PEP 219, so apparently
some people worked at some point on it).

 From my point of view, people suggesting to incorporate code
as-is often misunderstand that it is not sufficient for the code
to work in the applications were it is used. It must also be sound
(i.e. work in some meaningful way also in cases for which it wasn't
  designed), and it must be maintainable.

I can understand how discouraging it is when you see that your
code "works" that then people object to incorporating it as-is.
However, I believe the long-term quality of Python can only
be guaranteed when careful review is applied to every change
made, or else we will regret changes in the future (and indeed,
Python 3000 would not have been necessary if no mistakes had
been made).

> If addition of microthreading is being considered please consider
> Stackless.  One reason why Stackless is not so popular is that
> as a fork people shy away from it because it is not the main
> version.  It would benefit Stackless to be integrated and I would
> be willing to do any work involved to either integrate or maintain
> it afterwards.

This is what I'm talking about: nothing "is" ever considered. Instead,
individuals make contributions, individuals review them, and individuals
support and object to changes. There is no abstract python-dev
entity that likes or dislikes changes. Individuals have individual
opinions.

Now, where is the SF patch that makes Stackless part of Python ?-)
(and if you are serious about it, try to break it down into multiple
  pieces, each individually correct and useful; start with one where
  the effort isn't too big in case it gets rejected by BDFL
  pronouncement)

I haven't reviewed the Stackless code in a while; last I looked,
I found it was possible to crash the interpreter if you use it
"incorrectly". I *personally* object to changes where it is easy
to crash the interpreter, unless there is a clear specification
when this may happen, and there is a systematic way to avoid that
(this is the ctypes clause).

Regards,
Martin