> Code that's meant to be pinned (and may behave incorrectly if not pinned) looks no different from any other code. Same goes for async/await. The decision to

> Code that's meant to be pinned (and may behave incorrectly if not pinned) looks no different from any other code. Same goes for async/await. The decision to keep you running on the same native thread is up to the scheduler. > Java isn't positioned as a high-level, high-abstraction language and that's not, IME, the user community it has. I beg to differ. It aims to be a good compromise between productivity, observability and performance. Every choice, from JIT to GC, is about improving performance for the common case while helping productivity, not improving performance by adding fine-grained control. There are a few cases where this is not possible. Primitives is one of them, and, indeed, 25 years later, we're "expanding" primitives rather than find some automatic way for optimal memory layout. > It's always been advertised as a safer alternative to C++ - rather like Rust. I think you're mistaken, and in any event, this is certainly not our position. Java is designed for a good blend of productivity, observability and performance, and unless the circumstances are unusual, it opts for improving common-case performance with high abstractions rather than worst-case performance with low abstractions like C++/Rust. Roughly speaking, the stance on performance is how do we get to 95% with the least amount of programmer effort. Anyway, regardless of what I said above, the constraints on the design of usermode threads other than philosophy are also very different for Java than for C++/Rust for reasons I mentioned. Still, Zig does it more like Java (despite still using the words async and await, but they mean something more like Loom's submit and join than what they mean in C#): https://youtu.be/zeLToGnjIUM https://youtu.be/zeLToGnjIUM