4 ms·
How to Run Python in Production
- jb_gericke 1y agoIt sounds like the author makes a blanket claim to avoid asynchronous functions, even when using an inherently asynchronous web framework (FastAPI), which would negate any FastAPI asynchronous concurrency gains.
- ashishb 1y ago> It sounds like the author makes a blanket claim to avoid asynchronous functions, even when using an inherently asynchronous web framework (FastAPI), which would negate any FastAPI asynchronous concurrency gains. FastAPI is faster than the other popular framework, Flask (I posted data supporting that), even without using async. I only suggested that one should use their discretion when using async. When did I suggest not to write async code?
- jb_gericke 1y agoSo first off, don’t use Python in prod. Second off, don’t use async because of complexities in multi-threading? A lot of the world runs just find on Python (see Django), async is mature and stable.
- ashishb 1y ago> A lot of the world runs just find on Python (see Django), async is mature and stable. I never claimed that one should not use `async`, I am only suggesting that be careful about using `async`. In my experience, a median Go programmer is more comfortable with Go routines than a median Python programmer is with async functions. YMMV.
- its-summertime 1y ago"Consider using an unstable package manager" is a really really rough start. additional: "However, writing your own code that involves async functions", your code does use async functions, its just monkey patched into your program because you used green threads instead.
- ashishb 1y ago> "Consider using an unstable package manager" is a really really rough start. You can use poetry instead. Poetry is stable. I wish `uv` was version 1.0 or later. However, despite it not being version 1.0 yet, I do see that it provides a superior experience for me to switch from `poetry` to `uv` and to make that recommendation after adding the pre-version 1.0 caveat.
- Apreche 1y agoPeople get so hung up on the version number. These fools would rather use software with tons of bugs and security holes simply because the devs of that software dared to use a version number greater than 1.0. I see the entire community gravitating towards uv because of its merits. I tried it, and I agree. I already started using it for every project. I’ve even converted older projects to it.
- its-summertime 1y agopip and poetry have tons of bugs and security holes?
- Apreche 1y agoNo. I’m speaking in the general sense not to get hung up on an arbitrary number as the sole indicator of whether software is suitable for use in a production environment.
- ashishb 1y agoExactly.
- its-summertime 1y agoUv provides no support period of bugfixing for the previous minor release after a breaking change. So if a breaking change does occur, you must immediately update your entire world, test, etc, to continue to receive fixes. (unfortunately the norm for python projects). This is from their own documentation and release history. I never brought up version numbers before now, only their self-admitted unstable status. Version numbers were brought up by someone of the opinion that uv is stable enough.
- andrewstuart 1y agoPerhaps better titled as something like “my personal preferences for how I like to run python in production”. Presenting these opinions as truths will get the hackles up of those who have a different opinion.
- ashishb 1y ago> Perhaps better titled as something like “my personal preferences for how I like to run python in production”. Isn't that always implicit?
- zvr 1y agoOn the "formatters" and "linters" front, there is no need to use anything else than ruff, since it incorporates the functionality of all the other tools mentioned.
- ashishb 1y agoLast I checked, 6 months back, it didn't. However, ruff keeps evolving rapidly, so I am hopeful that I can get rid of all other linters and formatters over time. If you have a suggestion on streamlining my `make format` and `make lint` commands, I am all ears.
- gnabgib 1y agoBut you don't recommend it? (33 points, 38 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43297671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43297671
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ashishb 1y agoI don't recommend it. But for certain use-cases, as mentioned in the article itself, it is unavoidable. Further, you might be working at a company that has decided to use Python, and you can make Python more efficient and effective using these suggestions.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Hackbraten 1y agoMultithreading is not a prerequisite for async in Python. The default task executor runs in a single thread. So using async APIs should be safe as long as you stick to the single-threaded executor.
- ashishb 1y agoGood point. Have you seen any major advantage of using async API in practice?
- phyrex 1y agoIt's... faster for IO bound workloads? That's literally the whole point of async
- ibash 1y agoIf you don’t use `async def` and you are using fastapi it’s easy to accidentally block the event loop.
- ashishb 1y ago> it’s easy to accidentally block the event loop. Can you share a scenario where this would happen? I have deployed multiple machine learning and data analytics-focused web services, and this has never happened to me.
- winrid 1y agoWith a for loop? You probably don't know you are, or just aren't doing anything cpu intensive.
- chamoda 1y agoWell, you can even block event loop in `async def` if you are not careful. When you are using `async def` you need to do all your IO (disk, network) operations asynchronously or your are blocking the event loop.
- deleted 1y ago