> 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 switch

> 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).