[klibertp]

Thank you!! I was very interested in `convert-thread-to-coroutine` - I saw it on the ELS presentation, and when I went spelunking in the CMUCL codebase, I found the prototypes for `fork` and `resume`, but (probably because CMUCL is single-threaded?) nothing that would suggest how that `convert...` should look like.

Why is there so little interest in green threads/coroutines in CL community? cl-cont really isn't something to point to when asked about C10K problem... or yield/yield*... or async/await...

[boogsbyte]

There's great interest for it, not little. The challenge is who can do compiler programming, add a production ready implementation as contrib SBCL package, and maintain it?

[klibertp]

Hm, my impression is based on the lack of posts or articles with people demanding this to be a feature. I searched, and it just doesn't seem to come up in discussions, and when it does, it's invariably about cl-cont and problems with it.

The first implementation doesn't need to be production-ready. And the maintenance burden (along with polishing the implementation and porting to other architectures) could be shared by a few people and done over time. Having a starting point in the form of CMUCL code (already adapted to SBCL!) is the perfect opportunity for everyone interested to chime in: enough voices in favor could convince someone capable to continue the work. Yet, there are literally just 3 comments under the ESL presentation video, and it's not mentioned anywhere else...

[boogsbyte]

It's mentioned on X and Discord plenty, but you're right about cl-cont.

The first few steps would be building on top of this work and reaching out to the SBCL maintainers via the mailing list to see what it takes to get this merged in.