can't really see how this is any different to any other kind of
distributed computing. It should all be a matter of which object lives on
which side of the wire. Of course you *can* build incredibly slow system
when everything is a distributed object, but I cannot see why it *has t
up,
> starting with the paradigm: "everything is a distributed object".
>
Unfortunately the overhead of supporting distribution is way too high to
want to invoke it between two objects living in the same process.
> Do you know if such a thing has been attempted with pytho
from ground up,
> starting with the paradigm: "everything is a distributed object".
>
> Do you know if such a thing has been attempted with python, i.e. by hacking
> the python core and add new capabilities to "object". Or do you think that
> this is really a silly idea ?
ment a distributed system from ground up,
> starting with the paradigm: "everything is a distributed object".
>
> Do you know if such a thing has been attempted with python, i.e. by hacking
> the python core and add new capabilities to "object". Or do you think t
it
> might be less painful to implement a distributed system from ground up,
> starting with the paradigm: "everything is a distributed object".
>
> Do you know if such a thing has been attempted with python, i.e. by hacking
> the python core and add new capabilities to "
that those things
are difficult when built on top of an existing language.
Since the paradigm "everything is an object" pays so well, I thought it
might be less painful to implement a distributed system from ground up,
starting with the paradigm: "everything is a distributed object&qu
