3 ms·
I think you're spot on. For 99% of the use cases, traditional threads are the way to go. It's only when you have a truly massive number of logical threads (>100
by adwn 6y ago
I think you're spot on. For 99% of the use cases, traditional threads are the way to go. It's only when you have a truly massive number of logical threads (>100k, or even >1M) not doing anything most of the time, that OS threads reach their limits due to their aggregate stack size. In other words: web services, where each server thread either waits for input from the client or for a database reply, and only if they have to handle hundreds of thousands of concurrent clients.
This is not a concern for most Rust users, but it is a concern for large companies that are potential patrons of an up-and-coming programming language. I'm not saying it's wrong to cater to their needs, rather that it's not something over which regular Rust users should lose sleep.
- akvadrako 6y agoYou're right but even most big players can probably just use threads. If you are serving 1 million clients per VM you are probably taxed for other resources besides threads unless 99.99% of your clients are guaranteed to idle.