asyncio: What is the difference between tasks, futures, and coroutines?

[Rustom Mody]

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 6:41:38 PM UTC+5:30, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2015 21:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Rustom Mody declaimed the following:
> 
> >If the classic Pascal (or Fortran or Basic) sibling balanced abstractions of function-for-value
> >procedure-for-effect were more in the collective consciousness rather than C's
> >travesty of function, things might not have been so messy.
> >
> 	I suspect just the term "subprogram" (as in "function subprogram" and
> "subroutine subprogram") would confuse a lot of cubs these days...
> 
> >C didn't start the mess of mixing procedure and function -- Lisp/Apl did.
> >Nor the confusion of = for assignment; Fortran did that.
> 
> 	I don't think you can blame FORTRAN for that, given that it was one of
> the first of the higher level languages, and had no confusion internally...

BLAME?? Ha You are being funny Dennis!

There are fat regulation-books that pilots need to follow. Breaking them can
make one culpable all the way to homicide.
The Wright-brothers probably broke them all. Should we call them homicidal maniacs?

Shakespeare sometimes has funny spellings. I guess he's illiterate for not turning on the spell-checker in Word?

Or [my favorite] Abraham Lincoln used the word 'negro'. So he's a racist?

Speaking more conceptually, there are pioneers and us ordinary folks.¹
The world as we know it is largely a creation of these pioneers.
And if you take them and stuff them into the statistically ordinary mold then fit badly.

That puts people especially teachers into a bind.
If I expect my students to be 1/100 as pioneering as Backus, Thomson, Ritchie 
etc, I would be foolish
And if I dont spell out all their mistakes in minute detail and pull them up
for repeating them, I'd not be doing due diligence

--------------------
I guess this is nowadays called the 'romantic' view.
Ask the family-members of any of these greats for the 'other' view  :-)