zlacker

>>lukast+(OP)
I hope that someday, we can have a Rust-like language without async.

Bonus points if it has the ability for users to define static analysis a la borrow checking.

>>gavinh+tc
>I hope that someday, we can have a Rust-like language without async.

That exists today, it's called Rust. You don't have to use async.

>>nemoth+nk
Until you want to use a library that requires async. Now you do.

>>kelsey+6m
Which part of the standard library forces me to use async? Or is the complaint that you can't force other random developers to program in the way you prefer?

>>nemoth+et
Can you try steel manning?

>>kelsey+sv
I'm not them, but I don't think there's any general-purpose programming language in existence that prevents developers from implementing async runtimes and using them in their libraries.

So yes, if your whole reasoning is "other people might use async and then I won't be able to use their code", then you'll be waiting indefinitely for the magical programming language that's both fully featured for your work and does not have any portion of the ecosystem implemented in async code.