Subject: Re: Harmony - proxies | asynchronous

[Dmitry Soshnikov]

On 03.09.2011 1:26, John J Barton wrote:
> I'm pretty puzzled by this discussion and I'm guessing other folks 
> might be puzzled as well. Since I understood node fibers as "thread 
> for Node", the discussion I read is:
>
>    /be: You can have threads!
>    Mikeal: We don't want threads!
>
> If I'm on the right track, then I should understand how this relates 
> to proxies. But I don't.  Any hints?
>
Don't be worry :) the topic is a little bit changed. Initially it was 
asked how to provide asynchronous property readings (proxy's `get` trap, 
or a simple accessor's get which call some deferred action) in the 
syncronious view. And consuming generators (being a technique of 
implementation of cooperative processes) allow to do this, since can 
suspend a process and resume it from the next line, i.e. representing 
asynchronous in syncronious view.

But, that's said, even more elegant of such a technique would be either 
syntactic transformation at compilation level, or creation of implicit 
task-wrapper with a sugar for `yield` in this case. Regarding not using 
`yield` for improving asynchronous programming -- I also didn't 
understand the reasons. Because currently programming in Erlang (which 
have the same "green thread" which are managed by an _implicit_ 
scheduler) I can say that Node.js's spagetty-code with nested callbacks 
just, sorry, sucks in comparison with Erlang's which is also 
asynchronous, but allows to write it all in the synchronous manner. 
Though, the topic is not about Erlang...

Dmitry.