Comment by josephg
16 hours ago
> At any step in that sequence, the language could have introduced green threads and the job would have been done.
The job wouldn’t have been done. They would have needed threads. And mutexes. And spin locks. And atomics. And semaphores. And message queues. And - in my opinion - the result would have been a much worse language.
Multithreaded code is often much harder to reason about than async code, because threads can interleave executions and threads can be preempted anywhere. Async - on the other hand - makes context switching explicit. Because JS is fundamentally single threaded, straight code (without any awaits) is guaranteed to run uninterrupted by other concurrent tasks. So you don’t need mutexes, semaphores or atomics. And no need to worry about almost all the threading bugs you get if you aren’t really careful with that stuff. (Or all the performance pitfalls, of which there are many.)
Just thinking about mutexes and semaphores gives me cold sweats. I’m glad JS went with async await. It works extremely well. Once you get it, it’s very easy to reason about. Much easier than threads.
Once you write enough code, you'll realize you need synchronization primitives for async code as well. In pretty much the same cases as threaded code.
You can't always choose to write straight code. What you're trying to do may require IO, and then that introduces concurrency, and the need for mutual exclusion or notification.
Examples: If there's a read-through cache, the cache needs some sort of lock inside of it. An async webserver might have a message queue.
The converse is also true. I've been writing some multithreaded code recently, and I don't want to or need to deal with mutexes, so, I use other patterns instead, like thread locals.
Now, for sure the async equivalents look and behave a lot better than the threaded ones. The Promise static methods (any, all, race, etc) are particularly useful. But, you could implement that for threads. I believe that this convenience difference is more due to modernity, of the threading model being, what 40, 50, 60 years old, and given a clean-ish slate to build a new model, modern language designers did better.
But it raises the idea: if we rethought OS-level preemptible concurrency today (don't call it threads!), could we modernize it and do better even than async?
> Once you write enough code, you'll realize you need synchronization primitives for async code as well. In pretty much the same cases as threaded code.
I've been programming for 30 years, including over a decade in JS. You need sync primitives in JS sometimes, but they're trivial to write in javascript because the code is run single threaded and there's no preemption.
> What you're trying to do may require IO
Its usually possible to factor your code in a way that separates business logic and IO. Then you can make your business logic all completely synchronous.
Interleaving IO and logic is a code smell.
> The Promise static methods (any, all, race, etc) are particularly useful. But, you could implement that for threads. I believe that this convenience difference is more due to modernity, of the threading model being, what 40, 50, 60 years old, and given a clean-ish slate to build a new model, modern language designers did better.
Then why don't see any better designs amongst modern languages?
New languages have an opportunity to add newer, better threading primitives. Yet, its almost always the same stuff: Atomics, mutexes and semaphores. Even Rust uses the same primitives, just with a borrow checker this time. Arguably message passing (erlang, go) is better. But Go still has shared mutable memory and mutexes in its sync library.
> But it raises the idea: if we rethought OS-level preemptible concurrency today (don't call it threads!), could we modernize it and do better even than async?
I'd love to see some thought put into this. Threading doesn't seem like a winner to me.
Now you are comparing single threaded code with multi threaded, which is a completely different axis to async vs sync. Just take a look at C#'s async, where you have both async and multi threading, with all the possible combinations of concurrency bugs you can imagine.
Of course I'm comparing them. Threading and async are two solutions to the same problem: How do you write high performance event driven systems like network services? How do you solve the C10K problem (or more recently the C10M problem)?
If you use a thread per connection (or green threads like Go), you don't also need async. If you have async (eg nodejs), you can get great performance without threads. You're right that they can also be combined - either within a single process (like tokio in rust). Or via multi-process configurations (eg one nodejs instance per core, all behind nginx). But they don't need to be. Go (green threads) and Nodejs (async, single threads) both work well.
Of course we're comparing them. We all want to know who wore it better
You wrote:
> The job wouldn’t have been done. They would have needed threads. And mutexes. And spin locks. And atomics. And semaphores. And message queues. And - in my opinion - the result would have been a much worse language.
My point is that you do need mutexes, spin locks, etc with async as well, given that you have a multi threaded platform. So no, we have basically 2x2 stuff we are talking about with very different properties (async/sync x single/multi threaded).