Thanks for the discussions on the hows-and-whys of futures and asynchronous approaches in Python... they have been enlightening.
[OT stuff below] Michael Chermside wrote: > It is a FUNDAMENTAL PRECONDITION of Py3K that it will BE the existing > CPython codebase, with a few changes and some cruft removed. We are > NOT going to re-write from the ground up. If you don't know why, go > read "http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html";. I found myself agreeing with that essay when I first read it, but hindsight shows us that it was only half-right. It is very unlikely that Firefox could have become the platform it is today had they not completely re-engineered the architecture. Joel's points stand in that from-scratch rewrites are generally disastrous for *companies* which underestimate the length of time involved (almost a given), but because open-source projects do not need to be financially viable in the short run, they can afford much longer gestation periods (and often with superior results). Disclaimer, the above should not be construed as having anything to do with an opinion of whether Py3K should be written from scratch or not. When I asked about Py3K's intended reuse of the existing implementation, it was out of curiousity. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
