[uniqueuid]

> you should always explicitly delimitate the life cycle of any task

Unless you want a hacky actor system, in which case it's totally fine to `create_task` a ton of corountines which have their own spin loop with await sleep :)

[aserafini]

Even if you want to ‘fire and forget’, it’s still essential to keep a reference to the task, otherwise it can be garbage collected mid-execution:

https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio-task.html#asyncio....

[rolobio]

Wow! Did not know this, guess I’ve got a couple fixes to make…

[lozenge]

One coroutine crashing and the others continuing to send it messages without noticing was my $40,000 bug.

[Spivak]

I’m so confused by this architecture. It makes total sense in a threaded world but why would you want a coroutine constantly scheduling itself in a loop to pull messages off a queue like thing than just having the thing generating the message fire off a task to process it directly right there? It feels almost the same to me and then you can’t crash the coroutine.

[BiteCode_dev]

At some point even those tasks must be cleanly stopped and unless you want to play erlang and "let it crash", the actors have a lifecycle as well. Making it explicit will avoid much pain, and ease testing a lot. Also it will make resources consumption more predictable.