zlacker

>>jmakov+(OP)
I think the better way to think about async Rust is to use it when it's beneficial to developer productivity and to avoid it when not. There are quite a few situations where it makes the code easier compared to alternatives you could come up with.

I don't think for a second that async Rust should be picked for performance reasons.

You get a feeling for what is a good use of async and bad use of async relatively easily these days as the ecosystem is maturing.

>>the_mi+87
It is increasingly harder to avoid async Rust if you do any form of IO. Most of the useful io based crates assume you are doing async with a very minor amount of them giving you a non async api. Out of the ones that do they are bundling an executor to power that api because they don't want to implement it twice.

I think part of what is feeding this sort of backlash against it is the way that it creates two different rust ecosystems. One of them, the non async version, being decidedly a second class citizen.

>>zaphar+Ya
It looks like there's good movement on the proposal to bring pollster[1] or similar into the Rust standard library.

I think that's awesome. They've been afraid to "bless" an executor for good reasons, but pollster has 0 chance of "winning" even if blessed since it lacks so many features. However it's a solution to the problem you expressed: I/O crates can be async and used with pollster in sync contexts.

1: https://docs.rs/pollster/latest/pollster/

>>bryanl+sd
I haven't been following, would you have a link to this proposal ? A quick search of pollster in rust-lang/rust and rust-lang/rfcs does not bring any interesting result.

>>Aissen+Vm4
Good question. I might have been projecting my hopes to make it sound more formal, but the only thing I could find following my cookie crumbs was the mention in https://without.boats/blog/why-async-rust/