News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Async Python is not faster by danbruc on Friday June 12, 2020 @10:19AM (#23499456)
but threads get you the same thing with much less overhead.

That is not true, at least not in general, the whole point of using continuations for async I/O is to avoid the overhead of using threads, the scheduler overhead, the cost of saving and restoring the processor state when switching tasks, the per thread stack space, and so on.

Re:Async Python is not faster by catblast on Friday June 12, 2020 @02:31PM (#23502196)
The scheduler overhead and the cost of context-switches are vastly overstated compared to alternatives. The per thread stack space in effect has virtually no run-time cost, and starting off at a single 4k page for a stack, thousands still only waste a miniscule about of memory.
Re:Async Python is not faster by camgunz on Friday June 12, 2020 @11:45AM (#23500372)
async implementations build a scheduler into the runtime, and that's generally slower than the OS' scheduler. 10-100x slower if it's not in C (or whatever).