[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A plea for a new old language
Michael Vanier <email@example.com> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I find CPS to be easier to understand than scheme
> continuations. The word "continuation" (on this list, anyway) is usually
> used to mean "first-class continuations, reified as a separate language
> construct" i.e. what call/cc in scheme allows you to manipulate.
> CPS, on the other hand, only really requires first-class functions and tail
> calls, which parrot already will have, right? How you *use* those
> first-class functions and tail calls may seem very opaque to some of your
> intended users, but you don't have to make a big deal about it i.e. "this
> is what computer scientists refer to as continuation-passing style; all
> this means is ...".
I lead a small open source project named Mnet , which is written in
Python . We recently had a discussion about which idioms we use for
concurrency (local and remote), and I said "We use Continuation-Passing-
Style...". One of the other developers said "What is THAT?". I said "That's
where a function doesn't return a result value, but instead takes a callback
argument and invokes the callback with the result value.". He said "Oh, that.".
Regarding the plea for a language, the E language  follows the Actors model
of concurrency, which seems to be the same thing as CPS as far as I know.
Please forgive my ignorance about Actors. Here's a page describing E's debt to
^-- under re-construction: some new stuff, some broken links
 Oh come on -- you know where the Python home page is!