Python has had async for 10 years – why isn't it more popular?

Re:Python has had async for 10 years – why isn't it more pop... by ciupicri on Tuesday September 02, 2025 @02:58PM (#45107510)

GIL is not part of the language design, it's just a detail of the most common implementation - CPython.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Python has had async for 10 years – why isn't it more pop... by b33j0r on Tuesday September 02, 2025 @03:02PM (#45107559)

Fair and accurate. But that’s pretty much what people use, right?

I am happy to hear stories of using pypy or something to radically improve an architecture. I don’t have any from personal experience.

I guess twisted and stackless, a long time ago.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Python has had async for 10 years – why isn't it more pop... by miohtama on Wednesday September 03, 2025 @01:36AM (#45112527)

The GIL is optional in new Python versions. Downsides are legacy library compatibility and degraded single thread performance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Python has had async for 10 years – why isn't it more pop... by b33j0r on Wednesday September 03, 2025 @07:54PM (#45121734)

I mentioned subinterpreters. That’s the thing that “makes the GIL optional,” you still have to use subinterpreters.

Is this no longer true?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Python has had async for 10 years – why isn't it more pop... by miohtama on Friday September 05, 2025 @12:55AM (#45135097)

It is no longer true. You can have free threading.

[ Parent | on HN ]