> It's because await foo(); (or however you write it) doesn't tend to act the same as a synchronous function, even though that's what you're asking for. Because

> It's because await foo(); (or however you write it) doesn't tend to act the same as a synchronous function, even though that's what you're asking for. Because you called an async function, even though you immediately await the results, now your function is async, and it cascades up the chain, but often you need to provide a non-async interface, so then you're really stuck. As far as I'm aware of, this is pretty standard for language-level concurrency sugar. It's syntactically blocking in that it allows you to write code without callbacks/message handlers, but it's infectious up the call stack.