| >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. |
> 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.