Re:Futurelock: A subtle risk in async Rust
by sunshowers on Friday October 31, 2025 @05:05PM
(#45776690)
I think you can do a static list of actors or tasks in embedded, but it's hard to dynamically spin up new ones. That's where intra-task concurrency is helpful.
Re:Futurelock: A subtle risk in async Rust
by throwawaymaths on Friday October 31, 2025 @08:53PM
(#45778325)
iiuc zig has thought about this specifically and there is a safe async-cancel in the new design that wasn't there in the old one.
Re:Futurelock: A subtle risk in async Rust
by sgt on Saturday November 01, 2025 @06:02AM
(#45780493)
I was wondering when someone would bring up Zig. I think it's fascinating how far it has come in the last couple of years and now the new IO interface/async implementation.
Question is - when will Zig become mature enough to become a legit choice next to say, Go or Rust?
I mean for a regular dev team, not necessarily someone who works deeply along with Andrew Kelley etc like Tigerbeetle.
Getting back to Rust, even if not natural, I agree with the parent that the actor model is simply the better paradigm. Zero runtime allocation should still be possible, you just have to accept some constraints.
I think async looks simple because it looks like writing imperative code; unfortunately it is just obfuscating the complex reality underlying. The actor model makes things easier to reason about, even if it looks more complicated initially.