From tjoccam@crash.cts.com Sun Oct 31 15:49:05 2004
From: Lawrence Dickson <tjoccam@crash.cts.com>
To: Andrew Cooke <andrew@intertrader.com>, java-threads@ukc.ac.uk,
     occam-com@ukc.ac.uk
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:11:16 -0700
Subject: Re: A "CJT" in python
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 1995-03-03)
Message-ID: <200010282211.PAA11873@cts.com>

It could be favorable to CSP... "stackless" hints at
that, since occam on the Transputer was stackless (except
for a very small interrupt stack) and other implementations
(such as the one I worked on in DOS) can also be stackless.
Larry Dickson

On Oct 28,  8:07pm, Andrew Cooke wrote:
} Subject: Re: A "CJT" in python
} jm40@ukc.ac.uk wrote:
} > 
} > Python can compile to Java bytecode (well, JPython can at any rate) and as
} > it uses the same object model as Java, it should be able to use JCSP and CTJ
} > straight away (it can access Java classes as if they were Python classes).
} 
} [A language related aside]
} 
} It's looking increasingly as though Python will move away from
} compatability with the JVM.  There's a "stackless" version of the C
} based Python that is probably going to become the standard at some
} point.  It's advantage is that, not using the C stack for any particular
} thread, it is much easier to do thread switching, handle continuations,
} etc.  The disadvantage is that (apparently) it will be difficult to port
} to the JVM.
} 
} I have no idea whether the stackless version will make CSP more
} important for Python or not - I have no experience of langauges with
} continuations (the only one I can think of is Scheme).
} 
} Andrew
} 
}-- End of excerpt from Andrew Cooke