3 ms·
Yes, and it is...not great. It's generally fine as far as the language goes (considering it's a retrofit), but the builtin asyncio library is not the way to go
by karanlyons 8y ago
Yes, and it is...not great. It's generally fine as far as the language goes (considering it's a retrofit), but the builtin asyncio library is not the way to go in my opinion. trio is far better for just aping a lot of the Erlang way of things.
But even then it's hard to debug, or work out ideas in the REPL, testing is a bit more complex than it should have to be, etc. There are probably better languages to reach for (I'd love to see rust firm up a one true way of async).
- adamcharnock 8y agoFWIW, I was at a talk by an asyncio core developer at EuroPython and he said they are looking very closely at how to improve the asyncio API in upcoming 3.8/3.9 releases. In particular, looking at good ideas they can pull in from libraries such as trio. Maybe Python 4 will mark a maturing of asyncio?