On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:36 PM Ron Reiter <ron.rei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You are right that they are different, I was actually assuming that > developers by default don't try to parallelize and would rather go ahead and > write code to yield one function at a time, which is fine. The need to > separate "await" from the invocation is something which is rarely used. Not > sure what you mean about "threading" as it is still more efficient and > lightweight to parallelize workers on an event loop rather than using > blocking threads. >
Okay, so it's actually nothing to do with asyncio.gather(). Sure. So what you're looking for is JUST the removal of the "await" keywords. As Greg already said, Guido considers the explicit await markers as a feature, not a bug; these are the exact points where an intrathread context switch can occur. As to the efficiency of parallelizing on an event loop rather than using threads, that's a tradeoff; threads aren't going anywhere just because asyncio is here. When you want the extreme simplicity of "just do this stuff, okay?", the easiest way to get it is to just use threads, and pay a bit of overhead. You'll often find that the overhead isn't actually all that significant until you get to extremes of throughput - most Python apps are not trying to run tens of thousands of concurrent TCP sockets, for instance. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
