I look at Ruby or Go... or even Java and every new language feature has a much more rapider adoption curve.
is this a pretty solid statement that the entire Python 3 + asyncio path is a dead end ?
I certainly wouldn't call the Python 3 path "dead", as starting a new project you'd be silly not to use Python 3. It's just a very slow process.
Also, porting from 2 to 3 isn't even that hard (there's a script that does 95% of it for you).
I'm not sure if you have worked in the Ruby or Go ecosystem... but if you are starting a new project, you are using latest Ruby+latest Rails. this is not the case in Python. I asked a question here and on the /r/python forums. What framework should one use to build an API using asyncio+postgresql. Nobody seems to be doing it.
the answers I got mentioned using Tornado with Python 3 code on top of it.
People have compared asyncio with goroutines - but even for a project that is a migration from Go -> Python by a fairly advanced developer ... Py 2.7 is being used.
That's just FUD, it might have been true many years ago but not any longer. http://python3wos.appspot.com/, there are a few red holes but from what I could tell some of those have substitutes that in many cases are better even. It might also be true for in house libraries but at least there you have the chance to upgrade yourself.
the ecosystem is still running 2.7. I cant wait to switch to Py3.
Which one? Pyramid and SQLAlchemy work like a charm in Py3. Until you really name what your need is, that's just fud.
I hope that PyPy will have a Py3.5 compatible interpreter someday, but CPython is good enough for now.
if Pypy + asyncio was available, would you have built everything using that stack ? There have been all these benchmarks that asyncio is so much slower than threads [1] How would you compare that with Go ?
[1] http://techspot.zzzeek.org/2015/02/15/asynchronous-python-an...