On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Steve D'Aprano <steve+pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 03:14 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > >> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com>: >> >>> In contrast, every sample I've seen of the async library comes >>> across as "magic happens here -- at some point in time". >> >> That magic can be learned, in principle. I'm afraid few programmers will >> be willing/able to get over the hump, and there are a number of tricky >> aspects to be extra careful about. > > The huge popularity of asynchronous routines in the Javascript and Node.JS > community is evidence that it won't be "few programmers" but a whole lot of > them.
I agree, but the comparison isn't completely fair. Async functions in JS are an alternative to callback hell; most people consider async functions in Python to be an alternative to synchronous functions. (They might also be considered an alternative to threading or multiprocessing.) So the uptake is going to be driven less by "hey look how clean this is now" and more by "you can now improve throughput by doing more than one thing at a time" or by "you don't need the hassles of threading/multiprocessing". ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list