zlacker

>>todsac+(OP)
> I’m happy with how Rust turned out.

I agree, with the possible exception of perplexing async stuff.

>>mkorna+bVl
I write and use mostly async code, and I cannot for the life of me understand the async hate.

What do you want Rust to do differently?

What language does async right?

How did Rust not reach its async goals?

Rust even lets you choose the runtime you want. And most big libraries work with several runtimes.

>>echelo+01m
> What do you want Rust to do differently?

Lean into being synchronous. Why should I have to manually schedule my context switches as a programmer?

>>ori_b+VVm
Because async and sync programming are two fundamentally different registers. There are things you can do in one that you can’t with the other, or which have dramatically different tradeoffs.

As an example: Call N functions to see which one finishes first. With async this is trivial and cheap, without it it’s extremely expensive and error-prone.

>>simona+jnn
Do you mean RPCs, or dispatching to threads?

If not, your async code is a deterministic state machine. They're going to complete in the same order. Async is just a way of manually scheduling task switches.