On 10/4/05, Michele Simionato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/3/05, Peter Keller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > I have seen very similar discussions on python-dev. There most people > are strongly advocating *against* threads and consider as viable alternatives > cooperative multitasking and processes. In my experience I can say that > if you have powerful libraries to manage interprocess communication and > asynchronous programming (say Twisted) the only use for threads is to manage > third party libraries which are blocking, but for new code you can do > practically everything without threads.
+1. Scheme seems inherently well-suited to this kind of model, esp. given continuations and the plentiful supply of syntatic sugar. (Reading Twisted code can be painful at times; I suspect that a Scheme equivalent would bear much more readable and manageable code.) This bears the question: is there anything comparable to the Twisted framework (monolithic process with async IO, continuation-like application design) in the Scheme world? Clearly the foundation is there, I just wonder if anyone has "packaged the concept" as the Twisted developers have. Graham _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
