4 ms·
I know it's not easy to graft multicore onto Python. So why pretend? If you're serious about web programming you're not using Python anyway. You're using JS or
by vegabook 11y ago
I know it's not easy to graft multicore onto Python. So why pretend? If you're serious about web programming you're not using Python anyway. You're using JS or Golang. And if you insist on python, we have plenty of options to do async i/o already. Optimising async is like polishing the doorknobs on the titanic. Waste of effort.
What we need, is a concentrated focus on the only two areas where Python beats the competition hands down. Numerical computing, and newby accessibility. The first gets a token "@" operator (great, thanks), the second is moving backwards with 3.x. Asyncio, type annotations, and unicode, are answers to questions nobody is asking (except by those who refuse to use the right tool for the right job).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- pdonis 11y ago> If you're serious about web programming you're not using Python anyway. Web programming in general is not CPU intensive, so async I/O (which Python already does well, as you point out--except for the API issue, see below) works fine for web programming. > if you insist on python, we have plenty of options to do async i/o already But all of their APIs suck, at least IMO. Supporting async I/O with built-in language syntax, to make code easier to write and more readable, seems like a good idea to me.