> 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
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to