fdcavalcanti commented on PR #18414: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18414#issuecomment-3933304324
> > @Biancaa-R: @cederom I need a small help , so the older version is fully synchronous , the newest version is predominantly asynchronous with the async library , but it can be made sync also ,so which one do I do ? asynchronous implementation is fine? > > The old implementation is synchronous, so we need to stick to synchronous. As you know in Python using `async` in one place will taint all other calls with `async` thus flips the whole solution upside down. So let's stick to the old design :-) > > ps/2: I really liked Python some time ago until it became self-incompatible nightmare changing language syntax, standard library components and API, changing ecosystem syntax and functionalities (i.e. pip). This makes Python not much trustworthy solution when you think in long term maintenance terms. There could be completely alternative solution here just to avoid Python and rewrite this tool in C that will not change in time. Maybe tool like this already exist? Or maybe Python developers provided a quick-fix information when introducing this breaking change of telnet module removal what alternatives / solutions do they offer instead? The deprecation was announced some time ago. The current telnetlib page gives us alternatives: https://docs.python.org/3.13/library/telnetlib.html -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
