stackless python

[John DeWeese]

Bill Tate wrote:
> What do you want to know?  As you see development on stackless seems
> largely to be stalled, but I believe there are plenty of people still
> using it.
>
> OTOH, the chances of seeing stackless python or something like it in
> the core are currently in the vanishing-to-nil range.  We went round
> with this one on the newsgroup a few weeks back -- google is your
> friend here -- and the conclusion was there was noone willing and able
> to do the enormous amount of work required.  CT has done the first 90%
> of the work, but there's still the other 90% to go, and even if the
> work was done, it's far from certain that Guido would accept the
> changes anyway.

Hmm, that's disappointing that it's falling away without any word from
Christian Tismer since May (at least, his page). I've read that google
thread. Do you think there's enough support to carry concurrent versions
forward to the latest python versions, at least? It would suck if Stackless
is at 2.x and some new modules start requiring Python 2.(x+1).

So my goal is to see how I can take the stackless idea of micro-threading
and use it to drive all my simulation objects, to get the non-spaghetti
benefits of threading with sufficiently low overhead to support perhaps 100
object scripts. I've found Gordon McMillan's socket example (thanks Bill),
which appears to very similar in theory... very cool.

Now I just have to learn Python!

Do you guys know of more example code for micro-threads? Hungry for info!

  - John