zlacker

>>lukast+(OP)
The comment threads here discuss async in many different languages: Rust, Go, JavaScript, Python. Can somebody knowledgeable describe how they are subtly different between languages? Why are they painful in some but not in others?

Is there already an article that describes this well?

>>toolto+sh
They’re painful in all contexts because of function coloring. They’re slightly less painful in Go and JS because there’s a single opinionated async runtime built in. In Rust they have yet to standardize a bunch of stuff that would remove the pain:

async traits in std instead of each runtime having their own,

a pluggable interface so that async in code doesn’t have to specify what runtime it’s being built against

potentially an effect system to make different effects composable more easily (eg error effects + async effects) without needing to duplicate code to accomplish composition

Keyword generics as the current thing being explored instead of an effect system to support composition of effects

With these fixes async rust will get less annoying but it’s slow difficult work.

>>vlovic+jj
Go doesn't have function coloring. Greenlet, Lua, and libco solve the problem without function coloring by adding a stack-switching primitive. Zig solves the problem without forcing function coloring on all consumers of functions by having the compiler monomorphize functions based on whether they end up being able to suspend.

>>anonym+fB
A more accurate description would be that Go has a single function color, that is namely green. This distinction is important because, for example, C also has no function coloring problem only because it doesn't care about lightweight threading, i.e. its function color is always red. Only Zig's approach, and hopefully Rust's keyword generics if accepted, can be considered to have no function color.

>>lifthr+ME
I don’t understand the difference between "single color" and "no color", can you explain? What makes Zig’s approach colorless?

>>thiht+qS
While the original use of "function colors" was purely syntactic [1], they can be easily remapped to cooperative vs. preemptitive multitasking. This remapping is important because they change programmer's mental model.

For example, the common form of `await` calls implies cooperative multitasking and people will have a good reason to believe that no other tasks can't affect your code between two `await` calls. This is not generally true (e.g. Rust), but is indeed true for some languages like JS. Now consider two variants of JS, where both had `await` removed but one retains cooperative multitasking and another allows preemptitive tasks. They will necessarily demand different mental models, even though it is no longer syntactically distinguishable. I believe this distinction is important enough that they still have to be considered to have a function color, which is only uniform within a single language.

Zig's approach in comparison is often called "color-blind", because while it provides `async` and `await`, those keywords only change the return type to a promise (Zig term: async frame) and do not guarantee that it will do anything different. Instead, users are given the switch so that most libraries are expected to work equally well regardless of that switch. You can alternatively think this as follows: all Zig modules are implicitly parametrized via an implicit `io_mode` parameter, which affect the meaning of `async` and `await` and propagate to nested dependencies. There is definitely a color here, but it's no longer a function color because functions can no longer paint themselves. So I think it's reasonable to call this to have no function color.

[1] https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-...

>>lifthr+wU
Interesting thinking, thanks for the details! I’ll have to look into Zig’s async mode, it seems pretty good but I’m wondering what are the drawbacks of this approach (and specifically, why would you ever set io_mode to "sync")