← Back to context

Comment by forrestthewoods

10 days ago

Love Rust. They simply missed the mark with async. Swing and a miss.

The risk they took was very calculated. Unfortunately they’re bad at math and chose the wrong trade-offs.

Ah well. Shit happens.

7 comments

forrestthewoods

Reply
lionkor  10 days ago

I think Rust has a pretty solid async implementation, compared to other systems languages. I struggle to point out another systems language with a working and actually used async implementation.

swiftcoder  10 days ago

> Unfortunately they’re bad at math and chose the wrong trade-offs

They chose the exact same tradeoffs as C++'s async/await (and the same overall model as Python/NodeJS), so I'm not sure what that says about programming as a whole.

  • nromiun  10 days ago

    Async in Rust and C++ is nothing like it is in Python or NodeJS. Choose your own runtime is a very different model than having a default one.

    Not to mention Tokio (most popular runtime for Rust) is multi-threaded by default. So you have to deal with multithreading bugs as well as normal async ones. That is not the case with most async languages. For example both Python and NodeJS use a single thread to execute async code.

    • swiftcoder  10 days ago

      > Async in Rust and C++ is nothing like it is in Python or NodeJS. Choose your own runtime is a very different model than having a default one.

      Python still has pluggable eventloops - this is sort of mandatory to interact with weird things like GUI toolkits, and Python's standard event loop was standardised pretty late in the game. Early on there was even an ecosystem split between Twisted and competing event loops implementations.

      > For example both Python and NodeJS use a single thread to execute async code

      I'd argue this is more a historical artefact of how the languages functioned before futures were introduced, rather than an inherent limitation.

      2 replies →