3 ms·

It used to be true that pycopy had some minor improvements over MicroPython's asyncio module. But, recently, the MicroPython asyncio module has been completely

It used to be true that pycopy had some minor improvements over MicroPython's asyncio module. But, recently, the MicroPython asyncio module has been completely overhauled, most of the details are captured here: https://github.com/micropython/micropython/pull/5332 https://github.com/micropython/micropython/pull/5332 (Though there have been some additional performance improvements since that was merged.) The improvements to the old implementation are significant. I am no longer interested in following pycopy's progress but I'd be shocked if the asyncio implementation was better. Happy to see measurements to suggest otherwise...

tda 6y ago
I haven't followed the recent developments, last time I managed to compile pycopy was end of last year. Would be nice to read about a recent comparison between the two. Is there any reason to prefer one over the other? Just reading from that PR micropython now also runs picoweb, which is an async webframework that runs on an esp32 and I believe even on an esp8266
pfalcon 6y ago
> pycopy had some minor improvements over MicroPython's asyncio module Well, I was the author of "uasyncio" module, as was used with MicroPython. When I switched to Pycopy, I took that module with me. > The improvements to the old implementation are significant. Well, how to put it. Before I wrote uasyncio, I wrote asyncio_slow. And before I wrote that, I watched dozens of people writing their own async frameworks for Python. And I watch dozens of people doing the same as we speak. The reason I embarked to write my piece is because I wasn't satisfied with how other people do it. I may imagine you feel the same. So, good luck. (If you do it right, I'll use your stuff.) > but I'd be shocked if the asyncio implementation was better It's better, where "better" defined as "more minimalist". If you're not interested in minimalism, then you as well can use CPython's asyncio (and CPython itself).

tda 6y ago

I haven't followed the recent developments, last time I managed to compile pycopy was end of last year. Would be nice to read about a recent comparison between the two. Is there any reason to prefer one over the other? Just reading from that PR micropython now also runs picoweb, which is an async webframework that runs on an esp32 and I believe even on an esp8266

pfalcon 6y ago

> pycopy had some minor improvements over MicroPython's asyncio module Well, I was the author of "uasyncio" module, as was used with MicroPython. When I switched to Pycopy, I took that module with me. > The improvements to the old implementation are significant. Well, how to put it. Before I wrote uasyncio, I wrote asyncio_slow. And before I wrote that, I watched dozens of people writing their own async frameworks for Python. And I watch dozens of people doing the same as we speak. The reason I embarked to write my piece is because I wasn't satisfied with how other people do it. I may imagine you feel the same. So, good luck. (If you do it right, I'll use your stuff.) > but I'd be shocked if the asyncio implementation was better It's better, where "better" defined as "more minimalist". If you're not interested in minimalism, then you as well can use CPython's asyncio (and CPython itself).