future of Python: Stackless, Standard -> fragmentation ?

[Cameron Laird]

In article <8rk7e5$47u$1 at oslo-nntp.eunet.no>,
Thomas Weholt <thomas at cintra.no> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Just wondered if somebody could clear something up for me:
>
>First, the development of Stackless Python: if this is a great idea, why
>hasn't this been implemented in Python allready, or at least in Python 2.0?
>Is this the sort of thing that Guido and his friends will consider for
>Python 3k?
In two weeks, O'Reilly Net will publish a follow-up to
<URL:http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/python/2000/10/04/stackless-intro.html>
that addresses these questions.  The quick answer:  Guido's a careful guy,
who doesn't act in (so much) haste, and, yes, Stackless is already under
consideration for versions well before Python 3000.
>
>Secondly, could Python be fragmented in the future due to "distros" like
>(ActivePython), Stackless Python  and JPython so that we could have alot of
>python code that needs special "distros" of Python to run? Shouldn't the
>goal of Python be a platform independant core and platform specific things
>kept in seperate modules? Is the difference between the different
>implementations any reason for concern at all?
Barely.  There's more to it than this, but, no, for now rest assured that
Python won't fragment in the sense you appear to fear.
			.
			.
			.
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at NeoSoft.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html