httpx

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8678307/gevent-monkeypat... - gevent didn't play well with stdlib threads and multiprocessing, (had its own thread pool, subprocess wrapper, and no multiprocess story) while asyncio has a very good interoperability story - the asyncio pluggable loop meant we didn't need a perfect solution out of the box. Thanks to that design, we have been able to integrate the nodejs loop, like with the uvloop project, giving birth to stuff like asgi, fastapi and uvicorn. Asyncio can now comparable async perfs as Go. (gevent does that, but forces you to, and having libuv in the stdlib is not something the core devs would want). - gevent is a 5mo package. It's 1/6 of the ENTIRE python installer. - the coroutine based design means we have a standard api for async, no matter the backend or implementation. Which means solution like trio were able to emerge, and eventually the core dev are now considering including trio-like scoping in the next asyncio iteration. There are plenty of problems with asyncio though: - create_task is basically a goto. See trio for a solution. - coro() does not run the coro task. In JS it does, and returns a future you can await, or not. This makes it very confusing to beginner that get lost in the await/return/create_task dance. - there is no concurrency limiting primitive, cancellation is hard and back pressure mitigation is non existent. I was very skeptical about asyncio, but after 3.7, it became quite nice. asyncio.run() made all the difference, ergonomically, and when dealing with errors.