This is a good time to mention a Python experiment [1] that "covers up" Python 3.x's coloured asyncio with a synchronous wrapper that makes it more user-friendl

This is a good time to mention a Python experiment [1] that "covers up" Python 3.x's coloured asyncio with a synchronous wrapper that makes it more user-friendly. It's been posted here before [2]. I've pushed ahead with it professionally, and I think it's actually held up much better than I expected. This idiom worked well in Python 2.x with Tornado. Python 3's batteries-included async unfortunately broke it partway (event loops are not reentrant [3], deliberately). However, in this Rust post's "turn-that-frown-upside-down" spirit, the Python 3.x port of tworoutines enforces a more deliberate coding style since it doesn't allow you to remain ignorant of asynchronous calls within an asynchronous context. This (arguably) mandates better code. I don't claim Python is superior to Rust, or that hiding red/blue functions is a great idea everywhere. I did want to point out that dynamic languages allow some interesting alternatives to compiled languages. This is worth musing over here because of the author's stated bias for compiled languages (I think I agree), and his claim that red/blue unification would only be enabled by sophisticated compilers (not necessarily). [1]: http://threespeedlogic.com/python-tworoutines.html http://threespeedlogic.com/python-tworoutines.html [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18516121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18516121 [3]: https://bugs.python.org/issue22239 https://bugs.python.org/issue22239