On 19.08.2015 11:24, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Catching up on email after travelling last week, I want to explicitly note that don't agree with this any more - there's one method name on the event loop I think needs tweaking (for background blocking calls in another thread or process), but PEP 492 otherwise delivers all the pieces needed to make it straightforward to run the event loop as needed from synchronous code. I did a lightning talk about that at PyCon Australia, which I'll turn into another asyncio-in-your-synchronous-test-suite blog post at some point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pfJZfdwkgI
Nice video!
Explicitly asynchronous code is as much a tool for thinking as it is an execution model, so I've come to realise that folks wanting to hide the conceptual modelling is akin to the complaints we hear from folks learning imaginary numbers for the first time, and insisting that real numbers ought to be enough for anyone.
That is where I disagree. It is not about insisting that it would be enough. It is about insisting that giving it a try is not equal to rewrite 100% of your code.
Yes, asyncio (like Twisted before it) does stretch our brains in new and interesting ways - that's the main reason it's worth having in the standard library :)
That certainly is very true. During all these discussions, I really learned a lot. However, the main intention has not been changed: lowering the entry barriers.