[barkingdog]

I can understand that you might be a bit frustrated right now, because perhaps that level of performance in pure python may literally be difficult to impossible in this case. But, the question the person was asking was a very reasonable one -- something along the lines of "I'm using this solution in python right now, and I'd like more performance -- what are my options?"

It seems like you not only misunderstand the question, but felt the need to question their intelligence and give a rude, vague, and overall unhelpful answer. As a piece of communication, it is overall useless to everyone involved. Please be mindful of the way you come across. There's no need to insult, dismiss and disrespect others. It only takes a single moment, and saves time and energy for both you and them. You could rephrase like "No. You can approach this to a level of <percentage_of_perf>, but it will be hard to pass that point, due to the way the library is written." If you did that, you'd add some very valuable information to the conversation with little effort. It would be a win win for everyone.

Beyond that, assuming your benchmarks are accurate, this seems like a prime library for someone to write a python wrapper for! There's autobahn-twisted right now, but I'm not sure how well it performs in comparison.

[alexhultman]

Toss a coin and it will land on someones holy ground..

My intentions were not to harm, that was why I said "no offence, but". I cannot more than explain myself. Sorry if I offended anyone (despite explicitly saying "no offence"). Someone should probably censor me, like, a lot.

[barkingdog]

You've written what potentially appears to be a promising library. Great! In fact, it seems so promising that people are trying to find the equivalent in the language of their choice. Even better! Why not encourage them to write a wrapper for your fine library in their language of choice? Not everyone uses Node, after all. Maybe that person asking for equivalents in Python would've written a binding if you told them "Hey, you could try to do this in pure python but because of the relative performance of my library, you might want to consider writing a binding to µws."

I doubt you are trying to harm anyone. But you're not being very helpful. You say that you've "landed on someone's holy ground" but there is a very low chance that is going on. They probably just want to get a job done, and they want to figure out if your tool's a good fit. All it takes is a little bit more thought before you type out a response.

I'm not telling you to censor yourself. I'm telling you to stop worrying about explaining yourself, and start thinking about being more helpful. I'm telling you to do it, because it will make things easier for you. You might have written the library, but other people are going to be the ones who use it. They're going to ask you questions, and you're going to think some of those questions are stupid. It's okay. But if you try to be helpful to them even if you think their questions are stupid, you'll spend far less time writing defensive comments on HN, and far more time watching adoption for your library grow, which I assume is something you may want.

Best of luck!

[alexhultman]

Thanks, I can certainly help people with questions if they need help in writing a Python wrapper. I think that would be a good solution but it would need to integrate seamlessly with the rest of their app. Posting on GitHub would be a good start in this, or Gitter.