which async framework?

Chris Angelico rosuav at gmail.com
Tue Mar 11 20:02:28 CET 2014

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> This is the usual assumption that high-level libraries are made of useless
> cruft piled up by careless programmers. But there are actual reasons
> why these frameworks have a significant amount of code, and people who
> decide to ignore those reasons are simply bound to reimplement
> non-trivial parts of those frameworks in less careful and less tested
> ways (and they have to maintain it themselves afterwards).

Once again, that's a judgment call. Those frameworks are usually
written to be generic and to support lots of different systems, and if
all you need is one of them, it's not so obvious that you 'ought to'
use the framework. You do not need Joomla when all you want is a whole
lot of static HTML files by one person - look for a simpler framework
that doesn't put heaps of emphasis on user management, or no framework
at all (just some nice templating system).

But yes. If you're reimplementing something, you have to have a VERY
good reason. I'm much more likely to write a program that edits
bindfiles than to write a DNS server (although I have done both - Pike
makes it easy to do the latter, and I had one situation where I was
using DNS in such a way that I actually needed to generate responses
on-the-fly based on rules, rather than pre-write everything), because
BIND9 already handles pretty much everything, and its definition files
are simple and easy to manipulate. (That said, though, I have
*frequently* gone for some kind of meta-file with a script that
creates the actual bindfiles. Helps with keeping things consistent,
making sure I do the version updates, and so on. But that's not
rewriting BIND.)


More information about the Python-list mailing list