News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rust without the async (hard) part by zaphar on Thursday June 09, 2022 @01:47PM (#31684413)
I'm aware of the history there. I think the decision not to ship a builtin async runtime was probably correct. I also think shipping async syntax sugar and allowing people to build their own custom runtimes is just fine.

I just think that the cultural decision in the wider ecosystem to make, practically speaking, everything io related, async is possibly a mistake.

Re:Rust without the async (hard) part by geodel on Thursday June 09, 2022 @01:57PM (#31684543)
Well I think it happened because a large number of Rust committers, core-devs doubled down on multi-year Rust async effort. What larger ecosystem would take away from this?

IMO the message was Async is the future so everyone better hop on this train.

Re:Rust without the async (hard) part by zaphar on Thursday June 09, 2022 @06:21PM (#31687698)
I didn't get that message at all. The length of time it took to add async sugar made sense given what they were trying to do. It was not a statement regarding the suitability of it for every use case not should it have been.
Re:Rust without the async (hard) part by baq on Friday June 10, 2022 @03:45AM (#31691243)
the problem with async is it makes easy things much more complex if you don't need the performance. granted it should be easy for library/API designers to provide sync versions of all async calls, but I don't know if this happens.