I had understood your concern as wanting to avoid the complexity of asynchronous code execution in your codebase, I did not realize your concern is about writing very low level systems code. In that case, you are doing the right thing: libraries like ureq, minreq, Isahc, curl, and more all offer what you want.

It is unclear to me what you mean by keeping the community "in check". There are a lot of people who rely on and enjoy the async story, and they will continue to produce code that improves that story. Simultaneously, there are people who do not need that, and they are not hindered by this. People will build what they want and need. You've just picked some libraries from some of the biggest async contributors in the community and requested that they be kept in check so that you don't have to switch to a synchronous alternative, of which there are plenty.

It's not that "low level". It's that it doesn't fit the model of "mostly waiting for the network". Here are some of the things I have going on:

- Incoming events UDP packets from multiple servers. These arrive at the client and go into a queue for processing.

- Refreshing the 3D window. This ties up one thread almost full time. At the beginning of each frame, it reads queued events that tell it what needs to change in the GPU. The rest of the time it feeds the GPU.

- Some incoming events require querying external HTTP servers to retrieve assets. When the results come back, they include compressed items which have to be decompressed, processed, and turned into GPU-ready textures or meshes. This is prioritized by how important it is to display that object right now, based on the viewpoint. So there are priority queues along with multithreading.

There's more, but you get the idea.

What's so great about Rust is that you can do stuff like this without crashing all the time, spending your life in the debugger, or recopying big objects to safely pass them around.

The previous implementation, in C++, looked a lot more like an "async" model. It had lots of "coroutines", mostly running off a single thread. It also had a few things running as independent threads because they were so CPU-intensive. It was very prone to short stalls that annoyed players. This happened because something had to do more work than expected and briefly stalled out the coroutine system. The killer in async systems is the subroutine that is usually fast but sometimes slow. So I've seen this problem done in "async" style, and it didn't work well.

I've previously done robotics work which had many asynchronous tasks. I've used QNX for that, and I've used ROS. There, you have a lot of intercommunicating processes, which works but has more overhead.

None of this maps well to an "async" model.

Part of the problem here may be that I've done a lot of multi-thread programming and am used to it. It's an alien approach to programmers who came up from Javascript. That's a big fraction of the web backend crowd.

(Personally, when I have to do a web service, I write it in Go. That's the use case for which Go is designed. It has the libraries for that, and the goroutine concept is well matched to that task.)

> I've previously done robotics work which had many asynchronous tasks. I've used QNX for that, and I've used ROS. There, you have a lot of intercommunicating processes, which works but has more overhead.

I wonder, why is this kind of system a bad fit for the async model? Is it because all threads must be reliably preemptable?

You're replying to John Nagle, as in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagle%27s_algorithm -- perhaps it would be worth considering his words further, before dismissing his concerns?

Surely we can all agree that spinning up unnecessary threads is undesirable?

Doesn’t matter who he is, if he’s mad that libraries made for and by web and network developers are using a concurrency model that works well for their applications, he should use different libraries.

It does matter -- he was one of the first "network developers". He published RFC 896 over 35 years ago; he has more experience on this topic than almost anyone.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

This is not the strongest plausible interpretation of what he said --

He's not asking for people to not develop async code. He's asking for them to not hide it in synchronous code.

If you're expecting a blocking system call, and actually get a brand new background thread that's polling, it's quite reasonable to be frustrated.

>If you're expecting a blocking system call, and actually get a brand new background thread that's polling, it's quite reasonable to be frustrated.

It really isn't if the documentation doesn't outright say that it's single threaded and not thread safe. For a lot of simpler use cases where you just want to ship a thread-safe API (e.g. application does not have its own thread pool) then it just makes sense in a lot of cases to use some kind of automatic thread pooling. The caller does not have to know or care how the internal state machine is implemented.

If you have implemented your own thread pool it seems you should know enough to dig down enough to the lower layers to where you can get to that blocking syscall, or least to the point where you can strip off the O_NONBLOCK flags yourself.

Let me try to rephrase this in a way that doesn't pin the blame on "async enthusiasts" as people, and see if you agree:

Many years ago, well before Rust 1.0, Rust used its own M:N threading system, used segmented stacks, had it's own libuv-based event loop, etc. Also, it had garbage collection built into the language.

These were removed before 1.0, which made Rust a lot better as a systems language: you could reliably embed it into non-Rust programs, you could reliably interoperate with non-Rust libraries that didn't expect to be moved around threads, you didn't need to care about starting up the GC (or handling GC pauses), etc.

This was a good decision for Rust, and it turns out most of the things people wanted to do with these features could be done outside it - e.g., the borrow checker avoided the need for pervasive GC. (Though almost certainly not intentional, one side effect is that it distinguished Rust from Go: Go is great for standalone programs that need lightweight concurrency, but it's very bad at being embedded into other code and not the best choice if you're mostly calling FFI libraries.)

First, it would be good for Rust to stick to that decision. Rust should not regain a pausing GC in the standard library - similarly, it should not regain a thread manager in the standard library.

Second, it would be good for Rust libraries to work within the spirit of that decision. That's a lot harder, because part of the expectation when those features were removed was that some needs - notably around event-based processing - would be met by third-party libraries. As I understand it (and I might be totally wrong!), it was honestly a bit of luck that the borrow checker worked as well as it did and was ready at the right time, and the expectation was that someone would add a GC library and it would be widely used. However, it's very good that no widely-used GC library sprung up. In the same vein, it would be good for there to be no widely-used third-party thread manager library.

This might be hard, possibly requiring a borrow-checker-level miracle, but it's worth aiming for. And if there has to be a thread manager (or a garbage collector), it should not be part of core Rust.

Would you agree with that phrasing?

--

Incidentally, why does reqwest start up a polling thread when called in sync mode? Can't it do the polling on the main thread? (Or in other words, async programming doesn't imply multithreaded programming. I actually sort of expect that async programming is better suited to single-threaded programming with an event loop, because if you're okay with threads, you may as well just write synchronous code on threads! So either there is something subtle and very interesting here, or there's an easy fix, or I'm misunderstanding something badly.)

I think this rephrasing misses the mark a bit on the original concern. GP explicitly states that he wants Rust-the-language to remain as it is - close to the metal, no GC, with minimal runtime and 1:1 threading. The concern is indeed with the libraries/ecosystem. We are not quite there yet, but it is not hard to imagine that in a few years somebody who asks how to do some simple task in a blocking fashion will be met with replies in the vein of "well, that's not idiomatic", "why don't you use async", or "there was a library for that but it is now kind of unmaintained". All because the main effort of the community went into supporting and maintaining the async mode.

If the reqwest library indeed spawns a thread for every request, it is a good example of that dynamic. Sync mode kind of works but is clearly a second-class citizen and works in a suboptimal fashion. And if you want to peek under the hood to debug it you still have to deal with the async machinery in all its gory detail.

So that gets at my second question. I would expect that if async mode is working well, it specifically avoids needing libraries to spawn a thread.

Or put another way - when Rust removed M:N threading and also shipped out of the box with no event handling support after removing librustuv, the recommendation was that libraries should use threads to handle concurrency and make blocking calls on each thread, and modern OSes make threads perform well, so why not. Isn't the whole point of revisiting async to avoid that answer?

I have the same use cases of wanting Rust to be a close-to-the-metal language with a minimal runtime that you can safely plop in place of any C code, and it seems to me that the way to do that is to get the async story to be so good that people start saying "Well, that's not idiomatic" and "That approach was common but the libraries are all unmaintained" to libraries that spawn threads. What am I missing? Why are we associating "more async" with "more threads" instead of "remain on the calling thread and use an event loop"?

Exactly

That doesn't seem to be related to async? I don't know the details of rust's async implementation but that sounds like a problem with your application's setup -- you should be able to have a single threaded async executor that uses an event loop, or in simple cases, just calls poll/select directly?

To put it another way, it's unfortunate that particular synchronous API is implemented using threads, but there is nothing about async that implies one way or another that a synchronous method will be implemented using threads -- I've seen plenty of (questionable) C functions that do similar things like using pthread_create and then pthread_join immediately after to fake a blocking task.

Er? No, the point is that threads are what you want for cpu-bound tasks. Async does not deal well with long running cpu intensive jobs that hog the cpu without yield points.

Why not? The fix there sounds like it's as simple as adding some yield points.

Yield points in the middle of a large matrix multiplication (for example)?

Manually scheduling threads seems like a really shitty way to program

Not really? That's cooperative multitasking and it's used a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_multitasking

But regardless, the GP post was not taking about matrix math, it seems it was talking about sending an HTTP request and waiting for a response, which is something that actually is I/O bound on the TCP socket.

I know what it is, and there's a reason that all the systems listed as using it are obsolete.

> "I don't want an async model, which assumes you're I/O bound, interfering with keeping all those CPUs busy."

Strongly implies to me that there's a CPU-bound component there.

The systems that use it as a native threading model are obsolete, but there's also this sentence there:

>Cooperative multitasking is used with await in languages with a single-threaded event-loop in their runtime, like JavaScript or Python.

There's no reason rust can't have an executor that does the same, and you only use that within the event loop on your one or two HTTP worker threads. If you're waiting in a thread for an HTTP request to return, that's never going to be CPU-bound. I still am failing to see what the problem here is besides a complaint about some rust crate only supporting a multi-threaded executor, which again is a different problem than whether it's done with async futures or not. One could just as easily write some C code that forces the use of threads.

Those languages are also well known for not handling multiple cpu bound threads well. (And for that matter, it's simply wrong about Python, which uses native threads, but locks very heavily: you need to write native code to use more than one core effectively from one process.)

The goal is to NOT do what you're suggesting. It's a holdover from when native threads were much more expensive than they are today, and multiple cores on a single cpu were rare.