Sven R. Kunze added the comment: > Why bother with asyncio at all?
Good question. My initial reaction to async+await was: 'great, finally a Pythonic (i.e. a single, explicit) way to do squeeze out more of our servers'. Moreover, the goal of 'being more like classic code' + 'having reasonable tracebacks' reads like 'nice, ready for production code'. After reading the documentation, I was slightly confused by: coroutines, tasks, futures which somehow feel very similar. But because of the introduction of 'await', I thought, we would not need to bother with that at all. Then, people started to tell me that asyncio and normal execution could never interact with each other. I cannot believe that. Python always gave me convenient tools. I cannot believe it should be different this time. I can use properties the same way as attributes, i.e. I can substitute them with each other seamlessly. I can call class methods the same way as instance methods, i.e. I can substitute them with each other seamlessly. I can call functions that raise exceptions the same way as functions that raise no exceptions, i.e. I can substitute them with each other seamlessly. It is just perfect. Comparing the projects I am involved, those using Python proceed at a much greater pace just because of these convenient tools. So, I wanted to leverage asyncio's power without touching million lines of code as well. If asyncio is not the right tool, that is fine with me, but then I do not get why threading does not have its own syntax (and goals described above) whereas asyncio does. To me, I could accomplish the same more or less with both tools. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue24571> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
