I might be wrong, but from my point of view it is about the API proposed. The asyncio API is far more rich of new concept than curio one there are at least protocols, ioloop and to my knowledge you can't do write similar code of the tutorial without using protocol and ioloop at the opposite, the only new concept bring by the main of curio tutorial are - the run function - the await, async keyword The other api are copy paste to the synchrone ones
Le 24/10/2016 à 17:40, Andrew Svetlov a écrit : > I believe it is documentation issue, not internal implementation problem. > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:31 PM Xavier Combelle > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Dave has repeatedly stated that he's not interested in maintaining > > Curio long term or keeping the API stable. That means it's not going > > to happen. It might make more sense to propose carefully designed > > additions to asyncio that aim to fill in the gaps you've found by > > using curio. This should focus on API functionality; the performance > > is being worked on separately, and there's also uvloop. > > > I did not did really experienced asyncio by finding it too much > complicated > (and that I did not had real use case). > But when I read curio documentation I found it wonderful to the point > I want to experiment with it > I would love to see something similar in python standard library as > (from my point of view) > it looks like more understandable than current asyncio. > > -- > Thanks, > Andrew Svetlov
