zlacker

>>jmakov+(OP)
I’ve recently (past year) been diving deep into async Rust and the modern Rust ecosystem after a several year hiatus (last active 2013-2016, pre-async). maybe this advice applies to a small category of application developers, but this take overall feels reactionary (versus constructive) and immature (cites OS primitives that don’t approach the same design space). There are pains with async Rust but the community should lean into trying to solve them. I personally don’t feel the pains as severely as described…

Deferred computation is a primitive, and threads do not solve it.

>>cmrx64+b2
I feel that, from a language theory level, it should be possible to implement functions that can be called in both sync and async contexts, removing the need for function coloring.

Any fundamentally blocking operations could be forced by the compiler to have have two implementations - sync (normal) and async, which defers to some abstract userspace scheduler that's part of the language itself.

>>bheadm+N6
I believe Java virtual threads/project Loom fits what you are describing. No separate async APIs, everything is coded using a thread based model. The user decides between using platform/OS threads (thus delegating scheduling to the kernel), or using virtual threads and letting the JVM take over scheduling.

>>cherry+xc
Yes, Go also fits what I'm describing.

But I was wondering if the same thing could be brought to Rust, while still keeping the runtime away from the language. I probably forgot to mention Rust in the grandparent comment.