Hi John, Thanks for your lengthy analysis. I'm sure that it can be interesting for some to read. Unfortunately, I'm personally an Open Source hobbyist that happens to come from a university background and I'm still attached to some ideas behind it.
You say about my hacking STM: "Often the first to solve a problem does not become popular in the long run". That is true, and I have no problem with that. My guess is that in the end STM will end up being common in programming languages. So I would like to help along the way --- by showing that it works in complicated languages like Python, using the unlimited flexibility of Software TM rather than as an exercice to fit it around some Hardware TM. It would be nice if PyPy also becomes the de-facto 2nd-generation standard, but that's less realistic --- and not a problem for me. My goal is *not* to write and sell the final product. What would also be nice is if this final product was Python, but unfortunately, it seems unlikely at this point that CPython will ever convert to STM. I guess that besides PyPy, Python as a whole will lag behind, and likely only end up using some HTM solution in 10-15 years when it's fully ready. (I consider the HTM that we have this year as preliminary at best.) That is my current analysis on the future of STM. It doesn't include huge monetary benefits for PyPy :-) but it doesn't change anything about my own research motivation: 1st-generation research, as you call it. Obviously, PyPy as a whole is such a 1st-generation project. What I would actually like a lot is to see the emergence of other 2nd-generation platforms that apply the same principles as PyPy --- for example, it would be a first step to see an efficient JavaScript JIT compiler not manually written from scratch. A bientôt, Armin. _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
