> On Nov 23, 2014, at 6:35 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > > For whatever it’s worth, I find explicit async io to be _way_ easier to > understand for the same reason I find threaded code to be a rats nest.
web applications aren’t explicitly “threaded”. You get a request, load some data, manipulate it, and return a response. There are no threads to reason about, nothing is explicitly shared in any way. > > The co-routine style of asyncio (or Twisted’s inlineCallbacks) solves > almost all of the problems that I think most people have with explicit > asyncio (namely the callback hell) while still getting the benefits. coroutines are still “inside out” and still have all the issues discussed in http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/pep_ideas/async_programming.html which I also refer to in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16491564/how-to-make-sqlalchemy-in-tornado-to-be-async/16503103#16503103. > > Glyph wrote a good post that mirrors my opinions on implicit vs explicit > here: https://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2014/02/unyielding.html. this is the post that most makes me think about the garbage collector analogy, re: “gevent works perfectly fine, but sorry, it just isn’t “correct”. It should be feared! ”. Unfortunately Glyph has orders of magnitude more intellectual capabilities than I do, so I am ultimately not an effective advocate for my position; hence I have my fallback career as a cheese maker lined up for when the async agenda finally takes over all computer programming. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev