That Rust needed async/await to be palatable to JS devs would only be a problem if we think async/await is not needed in Rust, because it is only useful to work around limitations of JS (single-threaded execution, in this case). If instead async/await is a good feature in its own right (even if not critical), then JS forcing Rust's hand would be at best an annoyance.

And the idea that async/await was only added to JS to work around its limitations is simply wrong. So the OP is overall wrong: async/await is not an example of someone taking something that only makes sense in one language and using it another language for familiarity.

> So the OP is overall wrong: async/await is not an example of someone taking something that only makes sense in one language and using it another language for familiarity.

I don't really understand the counter argument here.

My reading of the argument[1] is that "Popularity amongst developers forced Rust devs hands in adding async". If this is the argument, then a counter argument of "It never (or only) made sense in the popular language (either)" is a non-sequitor.

IOW, if it wasn't added due to technical reasons (which is the original argument, IIRC), then explaining technical reasons for/against isn't a counter argument.

[1] i.e. Maybe I am reading it wrong?

You are not reading it wrong, and your statements are accurate.

My broader point is that the possibility of there being a "technically better" construct was simply not in scope for Rust. In order for Rust to capture Javascript programmers, async/await was the only construct that could possibly be considered.

And, to be fair, it worked. Rust's growth has been almost completely on the back of network services programming.

This comment is a lie.

You are not reading the claim wrong, but the claim is a lie. We did not add async/await to Rust because it was popular but because it was the right solution for Rust. If you actually read my post that this liar linked to, you will find a detailed explanation of the technical history behind the decision.

That is his claim, but he is lying.