On Feb 1, 12:40 am, "Michele Simionato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 31, 9:24 pm, "Carl Banks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, of all the things you can use threads for, this is probably the > > simplest, so I don't see any reason to prefer asynchronous method > > unless you're used to it. > > Well, actually there is a reason why I prefer the asynchronous > approach even for the simplest things: > I can stop my program at any time with CTRL-C. When developing a > threaded program, or I implement a > mechanism for stopping the threads (which should be safe enough to > survive the bugs introduced > while I develop, BTW), or I have to resort to kill -9, and I *hate* > that. Especially since kill -9 does not > honor try .. finally statements. > In short, I prefer to avoid threads, *especially* for the simplest > things. > I use threads only when I am forced to, typically when I am using a > multithreaded framework > interacting with a database.
Fair enough. I'm just saying that just because something is good for funded, important, enterprise tasks, it doesn't mean very simple stuff automatically has to use it as well. For Pete's sake, even Perl works for simple scripts. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
