Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I thought we all moved over to Niquests and/or aiocquic and HTTP/3 these days.
    by cbsmith
  • HTTPX2 isn't a great name for a fork (or at all). Just leads to more confusion.

    Nevertheless, I'm curious about the pros and cons when comparing with "niquests".

    by dethos
  • Everytime someone is using httpx I always wonder why use that especially when niquests exists? I feel like it has always been such a better package
    by niltecedu
  • Also see the user’s other submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49477212

    “OpenAI: Migrating to HTTPX2” (github.com/openai)

    66 points | 1 hour ago | 50 comments

    by WalterGR
  • People should be aware how much worse HTTPX performs versus Aiohttp. For high scale systems it makes a massive difference
    by casper14
  • I would been pleased to see this project named something else, maybe “httpx-ng” or “httpy” as I immediately link “http*2” with the obsolete http/2 protocol and not the httpx project.
    by jenders
  • Noob question: what's the purpose of having so many request libraries? In JavaScript it's crazy, but in Python it's starting to feel the same: requests, httpx, httpx2...

    From my perspective, HTTP requests have been mastered for years (decades?). What's the point of switching libraries? What's so extraordinary about the new HTTP library that makes requests look crap?

    I understand that new protocols appear from time to time (like HTTP/2), but that's very rare. And if there are performance differences between two libraries, are they really that huge? Even if they are, 99% of people don't need that boost. What prevents someone from just improving the existing library's performance?

    by BoumTAC

Explore Birbla archives