On 4 April 2018 at 08:27, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > "Asynchronous programming has been gaining a lot of traction in the past > few years, and for good reason. Although it can be more difficult than > the traditional linear style, it is also much more efficient." > > I can agree with the first part of the first sentence (gaining a lot of > traction), and the first part of the second sentence (more difficult than > the traditional style), but the second part? Asynchronous processing is > *more efficient*?
I'd need to know what "efficient" meant. Obviously you're never going to get more than 100% utilisation of a single core with async (because of the GIL) but I can easily imagine async making more complete use of that core by having less time spent waiting for I/O. Whether you describe that as "more efficient" use of the CPU, or something else, I don't know. Honestly, that paragraph reads more like sales blurb than anything else, so I'd be inclined to take it with a pinch of salt anyway. IMO, async has proved useful for handling certain types of IO bound workloads with lower overheads[1] than traditional multi-threaded or multi-process designs. Whether it's a good fit for any particular application is something you'd have to test, as with anything else. Paul [1] I found it really hard to avoid saying "more efficiently" there. Not sure what that implies other than that the phrase means whatever you want it to mean!!! -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
