zlacker

>>lukast+(OP)
When writing some IO bound application, async Rust is great. Less great for libraries that want to support both async and sync without having to make an async runtime a dependency if you just want the sync interface. Mutually exclusive features are taboo unfortunately. One thing I really love about Haskell is you can make any function run in a green thread by simply composing it with the 'async' function. There's nothing special about it. This works much better than say Go, because Haskell is immutable.

>>xedrac+zh
I'm not clear what your last sentence has to do with anything else? What does immutability have to do with Async/sync conversions?

>>XorNot+ri
Immutability is great for multithreaded/async programs because every thread can rest assured knowing no other thread can sneakily modify objects that they are operating on currently.

>>polyga+Ol
Immutability is, quite possibly, the dumbest “silver bullet” solution ever to be praised as a solution to anything.

Congratulations, nobody is going to sneakily update an object on you, but also, nobody knows about your updates either.

It’s not a worthwhile trade off given the massive extra work it causes.

>>wredue+pD
> Congratulations, nobody is going to sneakily update an object on you

I've seen Heisenbugs where some random code calls a setter on an object in a shared memory cache. The setter call was for local logic - so immutable update would've saved the day. It had real world impact too: We ordered a rack with a European plug to an American data center (I think a human in the loop caught it thankfully).

Also, how often do you even use mutability really? Like .. for what? Logic is easier to express with expressions than a Rube Goldberg loop mutating state imo.