[bitc-dev] BitC, Irken, CPS
constantine.plotnikov at gmail.com
Wed Feb 11 07:31:16 EST 2009
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Sam Rushing
<sam-bitc at rushing.nightmare.com> wrote:
> William Leslie wrote:
>> (of course, I take it you've read
>> http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-1.html ,
>> every python developer has.)
>> It's not obvious to me why storing 100,000 stacks and thread states
>> even constitutes an alternative to async I/O.
> Heh, you're preaching to the choir here. I've been arguing against SMP
> for many years. I'm an MIMD guy myself.
Considering that you are designing a new language, it might be better
to support asynchronous components. Of what I know, E
(http://erights.org) has one of most usable syntaxes. I have managed
to implement a verbose version of it in Java using inner classes
(http://asyncobjects.sf.net). Considering that you seems doing CPS
rewrite already, the implementation of E syntax will be quite trivial.
AFAIR on E mailing list there was discussion of about implementation
of E's operators in Scheme or some other variant of the LISP. It
should be also relatively easy to add Occam-like seq/par constructs
with loop variants.
More information about the bitc-dev