George Fischoff wrote: > So when the default is async, the user will get faster program, by default.
Chris Angelico wrote: > Okay, well that's the problem. An async function won't yield the values faster, and it will not allow two things to happen simultaneously. It just allows I/O and other such operations to happen asynchronously. I think the OP might be somewhat conflating parallelism and concurrency. For anyone not entirely clear on the differences between the two, I would highly recommend the following video for an in-depth explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_DpYBzKso. The usage of concurrent programming does not increase the speed of any given program by default, and is not suited to every situation. On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 6:01 AM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:13 PM George Fischhof <geo...@fischhof.hu> > wrote: > > > > yes exactly I would like this. > > > > Regarding the waiting and frameworks: > > > > The solution should be independent from waiting and frameworks: > > > > Let's see what happens now (sync, not async) > > > > User has a generator, he wants values. > > > > Uses a for cycle to process all values from generator: > > Asks for first value - wait for the value to be computed > > Processes the value he got > > Asks for next value - wait for the value to be computed > > And processes again, and again > > > > The async version: > > > > User has a generator, he wants values, he created an async version, > because he wants the values faster > > > > Okay, well that's the problem. An async function won't yield the > values faster, and it will not allow two things to happen > simultaneously. It just allows I/O and other such operations to happen > asynchronously. > > If you want the values faster, consider instead a second thread or > process and a queue; in place of the generator, just read from the > queue, which will block until you have something to read. Meanwhile, > your other thread/process is generating values and placing them on the > queue. > > What you're asking for is not just a syntactic change - it's a > significant semantic change that introduces concurrency in ways that > async functions do not currently have. Basically you'd get all the > problems of threading, without the advantages of threading. > > ChrisA > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/LXAXTHPHYMUIKJIFVK4PN4OLB7LQGKZX/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/FNNM6LUOZ5XA4P3UZA3PYCS73P6JD2VW/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
