On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Sam Rushing <[email protected]> wrote: > William Leslie wrote: >> (of course, I take it you've read >> http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-1.html , >> every python developer has.) >> >> It's not obvious to me why storing 100,000 stacks and thread states >> even constitutes an alternative to async I/O. >> >> > Heh, you're preaching to the choir here. I've been arguing against SMP > for many years. I'm an MIMD guy myself. > Considering that you are designing a new language, it might be better to support asynchronous components. Of what I know, E (http://erights.org) has one of most usable syntaxes. I have managed to implement a verbose version of it in Java using inner classes (http://asyncobjects.sf.net). Considering that you seems doing CPS rewrite already, the implementation of E syntax will be quite trivial.
AFAIR on E mailing list there was discussion of about implementation of E's operators in Scheme or some other variant of the LISP. It should be also relatively easy to add Occam-like seq/par constructs with loop variants. Constantine _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
