4 ms·
Yeah. `async` involves a lot of sophisticated and bleeding edge machinery, and is not really "fully ready" for wide-consumption, IMO. What's funny is that whil
by dpc_pw 6y ago
Yeah. `async` involves a lot of sophisticated and bleeding edge machinery, and is not really "fully ready" for wide-consumption, IMO.
What's funny is that while `async` is great tool to have 99% of programs will not see a difference.
- sanxiyn 6y agoI think wide consumption is getting there, but I don't think it will be ever ready for consumption by learners. There is just a lot under the hood. (It pains me to write that because otherwise I am very much against Joel's law of leaky abstractions, I believe in aiming for leak-proof abstractions, and I know they are possible. It's just that it probably is not always possible, and it is especially hard to abstract learnability, and it is a lot of work even when it is possible.) While I also think most people do not need async and will not see differences, I focus on learning aspect and refrain from saying "you probably don't need it", because I found people are not stupid and people who insist on async usually have actual need for async. This may be due to what kind of people congregate on my local community and may not hold elsewhere though.