[kerkeslager]

1. I don't agree with your conclusion that it's Python specific. You don't have evidence for that--you made that up. And no I'm not interested in whatever benchmark you're going to want to post, because it's not a test of this situation--it cannot possibly be, because when you introduce JS, you're also going to be introducing literally hundreds of other factors which could affect the performance. The assertion you are making is not one you can possibly know.

2. For this specific test, there is a downside to async, as shown by the test. Even if what's going on here were Python-specific (which is still something you made up), downsides to async which only occur in a Python environment are still downsides to async. The title of this post is "Async Python is not faster"--that conclusion is incorrect for many reasons, but none of those reasons include the words "NodeJS", "JS", or anything else that is not in the Python ecosystem.

3. What is going on is probably specific to the tools being used, which is why I said "those downsides certainly don't apply to every project". In fact, they probably don't apply to the idiomatic ways of implementing this in Tornado, for example. But note how I said "probably" because I don't know for sure, and I'm not comfortable with making things up and stating them as facts.

[crimsonalucard1]

>And no I'm not interested in whatever benchmark you're going to want to post,

That's rude.

Let's put it this way. NodeJS and nginx leveled the playing field. It destroyed the lamp stack and made async the standard way of handling high loads of IO. From that alone it should indicate to you that there is something very wrong with how you're thinking about things.

You know the theory of asyncio? Let me restate it for you: If coroutines are basically the SAME thing as routines but with the extra ability to allow tasks to be done in parallel with IO then what does that mean?

It means that 5 async workers in theory should be more performant than 5 sync workers FOR highly concurrent IO tasks.

The logic is inescapable.

So what does it mean, if you run tests and see that 5 async workers are NOT more performant than 5 sync workers ON PYTHON exclusively? The theory of asyncio makes perfect logical sense right? So what is logically the problem here?

The problem IS PYTHON. That's a theorem derived logically. No need for evidence or data driven techniques.

There's this idea that data drives the world and you need evidence to back everything up. How many data points do you need to prove 1 + 1 = 2? Put that in your calculator 200 times and you got 200 data points. Boom data driven buzzword. That's what you're asking from me btw. A benchmark, a datapoint to prove what is already logical. Then you hilariously decided to dismiss it before i even presented it.

Look, I say what I say not from evidence, but from logic. I can derive certain issues about the system from logic. You just follow the logic I gave you above and tell me where it went wrong and why do I need some dumb data point to prove 1+1=2 to you?

There is NOTHING made up above. It is pure logic derived from the assumption of what AsyncIO is doing.

>But note how I said "probably" because I don't know for sure, and I'm not comfortable with making things up and stating them as facts.

But you seem perfectly comfortable in being rude and accusing me of making stuff up. I'm not comfortable in going around the internet and trashing other peoples theories with accusations that they are making shit up. If you disagree say it, I respect that. I don't respect the part where you're saying I'm making stuff up.

[kerkeslager]

> > And no I'm not interested in whatever benchmark you're going to want to post,

> That's rude.

It wasn't rude, it was predictive, and I predicted correctly. You literally ignored the second half of the sentence where I already explained why your incorrect conclusion is incorrect.

Your logic makes perfect sense, in a world where I/O bound processes, JIT versus interpretation differences, garbage collection versus reference counting differences, etc., don't exist. But those things do exist in the real world, so if your logic doesn't include them, you're quite likely to be wrong. In general, an interpreted concurrent system is far too complex to make performance predictions about based only on logic, because your logic can't possibly include all the relevant variables.

> No need for evidence or data driven techniques.

Well, there's where you're wrong. It turns out that if you actually collect evidence through experimentation, you'll discover results that are not predicted by your logic.

> Then you hilariously decided to dismiss it before i even presented it.

Well, you presented basically what a predicted, so... I wasn't wrong.

> But you seem perfectly comfortable in being rude and accusing me of making stuff up. I'm not comfortable in going around the internet and trashing other peoples theories with accusations that they are making shit up. If you disagree say it, I respect that. I don't respect the part where you're saying I'm making stuff up.

You are, in fact, making stuff up. If you are offended by accurate description of your behavior, behave better.

[crimsonalucard1]

>Your logic makes perfect sense, in a world where I/O bound processes, JIT versus interpretation differences, garbage collection versus reference counting differences, etc., don't exist. But those things do exist in the real world, so if your logic doesn't include them, you're quite likely to be wrong. In general, an interpreted concurrent system is far too complex to make performance predictions about based only on logic, because your logic can't possibly include all the relevant variables.

Hey Genius. Look at the test that the benchmark ran. The benchmark is IO bound. This is SPECIFIC test about IO bound processes. The benchmark is not referring to real world applications it is SPECIFICALLY referring to IO.

The literal test is thousands of requests and for each handler for those requests ALL it does is query a database. If you look at a single request almost 99% of time is spent on IO.

Due to the above, Anything that has to do with the python interpreter, JIT, garbage collection and reference counting becomes NEGLIGIBLE in the context of the TEST in the ARTICLE ABOVE. I suspect you didn't even read it completely.

Does that concept make sense to you? You can use relativity rather then newtonian physics to calculate the trajectory of a projectile BUT it is involves UNNECESSARY overhead coming from Relativity because the accuracy gained from the extra calculations ARE NEGLIGIBLE.

>You are, in fact, making stuff up. If you are offended by accurate description of your behavior, behave better.

Now that things have been explained completely clearly to you, do you now see how you are the one who is completely wrong or are you incapable of ever admitting your wrong and apologizing to me like you should? I mean literally that statement above is embarrassing once you get how wrong you are.

[kerkeslager]

> Anything that has to do with the python interpreter, JIT, garbage collection and reference counting becomes NEGLIGIBLE

Well, it's odd that you say that, when previously you were claiming that the result was caused by Python. Is it caused by Python, or is Python negligible?

> You can use relativity rather then newtonian physics to calculate the trajectory of a projectile BUT it is involves UNNECESSARY overhead coming from Relativity because the accuracy gained from the extra calculations ARE NEGLIGIBLE.

Man, you sure are willing to make broad statements that you cannot possibly know.

You're really sure that there's no context where the accuracy gained by relativity would be useful?

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps....

Again, this is you making stuff up. The worst part here is that a basic application of logic, which you claim to have such a firm grasp on that you don't need evidence, would indicate that you cannot possibly know the things you are claiming to know. You really think you know all the possible cases where someone might want to calculate the trajectory of a projectile? Really?

[dang]

Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. Even though the other user broke the site guidelines worse, you started it and you provoked it further. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of how wrong the other person is or you feel they are.

I'm not going to ban you for this because it isn't repeated a lot in your account history, but please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[crimsonalucard1]

>Well, it's odd that you say that, when previously you were claiming that it was caused by Python. Is it caused by Python, or is Python negligible?

It's not odd. Think harder. I'm saying under the benchmark and according to the logic of what SHOULD be going on under AsyncIO it SHOULD be negligible. So such performance issues between python and node SHOULDN'T matter, and that's why you CAN compare NodeJS and Python.

But actual testing does show an unexpected discrepancy that says that the problem is python specific because logically there's No other explanation.

>You're really sure that there's no context where the accuracy gained by relativity would be useful?

Dude I already know about that. I just didn't bring it up, because I'm giving you an example to help you understand what "NEGLIGIBLE" means. You're just being a pedantic smart ass.

There are many many cases where relativity is not needed because it's negligible. In fact the overwhelming majority of engineering problems don't need to touch relativity. You are aware of this I am aware of this. No need to be a pedantic smart ass. The other thing that gets me is that it's not even anything new, many people know about how satellites travel fast enough for relativity to matter.

>Again, this is you making stuff up

Dude nothing was made up.

I never said "there's no context where the accuracy gained by relativity would be useful". "No context" is something YOU made up.

In fact "made up" is too weak of a word. A better word is an utter lie.

That's right. You're a liar. I'm not being rude. Just making an observation. Embarrassed yet?

[dang]

I've banned this account for repeatedly doing flamewars. Would you please stop creating accounts to break HN's rules with? You're welcome here if, and only if, you sincerely want to use this site in the intended spirit.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html