unasync VS create-siler-app

Nice! This is similar to the solution here: https://github.com/python-trio/unasync

Lastly, I found another project name unasync that is pretty interesting and might works for me. Basically, you write the async version, you run unasync, it generate the sync version from the AST. This project is used by the official elastic search python client.

Fibers "allow blocking and non-blocking implementations to share the same API"

That's an interesting contrast to Python where the need to use "value = await fn()" v.s. "value = fn()" depending on whether or not that function is awaitable causes all kinds of API design complexity, all the way up to the existence of tools like https://github.com/python-trio/unasync which can code-generate the non-async version of a library from the async version.

Async Python has proven faster in my uses for IO and non-CPU-related stuff. But I think Python, either as a community or within the language, needs to solve the anti-pattern of maintaining separate sync and async versions of a library. I'm thinking specifically of aioredis and redis-py, both of which I've worked on.

Some people are looking at ways to solve this. I know urllib3, elasticsearch-py, and a few others use unasync (https://github.com/python-trio/unasync) to transform async code into sync code, leaving one codebase supporting both uses in different namespaces. This leaves you with some conditional logic (is_async_mode() -- https://github.com/python-trio/hip/blob/master/src/ahip/util...). I'm seriously considering this approach.