I V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 22 May 2008 19:35:50 -0700, Charles Hixson wrote: > > Although when comparing Candygram with Erlang it's worth noting that > > Candygram is bound to one processor, where Erlang can operate on > > multiple processors. (I'd been planning on using Candygram for a project > > at one point, but this made it unusable.) > > Really? The FAQ says it uses operating system threads, which I would have > thought would mean it runs on multiple processors (modulo, I suppose, the > issues with the GIL).
I think candygram is crying out to be married with stackless &or PyPy. It also needs an IPC channel to compete with Erlang directly. If you are interested in stackless python vs Erlang then take a look at this... http://muharem.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/erlang-vs-stackless-python-a-first-benchmark/ ...and read the discussion too! -- Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list