News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Uvloop: Fast Python networking by jsjohnst on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @09:22AM (#11628102)
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you're looking for, but doesn't Tornado fit that bill?
Re:Uvloop: Fast Python networking by sametmax on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @12:14PM (#11629379)
Tornado still too low level.

    - It's verbose compared to flask.
    - It reinvent the wheel, while flask uses great components such as werkzeug.
    - If you want to make a component, it's complex.
    - It doesn't come battery included for the Web like Django, just the bare minimum.
    - It misses the opportunity to provide task queues, RPC or PUB/SUB which are key components to any modern stacks are made easily possible by having persistent connections.
    - It ignores async/await potential of unifying threads/process/asyncio and don't allow easy multi-cpu.
Don't get me wrong, I think tornado is a great piece of software, but it's not match against innovative projects we see in Go or NodeJS such as Meteor.
Re:Uvloop: Fast Python networking by jsjohnst on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @11:27PM (#11633844)
We will have to agree to disagree on many of your points as they are mostly personal opinions, but the last one is flat wrong. Tornado has for a long time had great support for fully leveraging all CPU cores. Happy to show sample code if you like.
Re:Uvloop: Fast Python networking by sametmax on Thursday May 05, 2016 @03:26AM (#11634517)
My mistake. My knowledge on tornado is dated.
Re:Uvloop: Fast Python networking by mayhew on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @12:36PM (#11629538)
Yeah, it's hard for Python to compete with languages like Go and Erlang that multiplex IO in the runtime.
Re:Uvloop: Fast Python networking by sametmax on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @05:48PM (#11632176)
It's not hard for the language, but we don't have the proper framework yet. Because such a framework is quite a task.