5 ms·

> We didn't think the benefits of asynchrony would be worth the added complexity to the language server. (For what it's worth, the folks behind Rust Analyzer, t

> We didn't think the benefits of asynchrony would be worth the added complexity to the language server. (For what it's worth, the folks behind Rust Analyzer, the most mature LSP implementation in Rust, seem to agree.) That is interesting. Is it that much complexity when using async Rust?

mutatio 5y ago
In my experience, for the basics, Rust async is great, it gets messier around more complex things, e.g. async database transaction retries or async-at-depth type flows - also, async traits are not available yet as standard (there is a crate available).
- codeflo 5y ago
  For procedural code, async is fine. I still hate writing anything resembling a higher-order function (a function that takes or returns a function) in async Rust. The type constraints become longer than the code, and I can never seem to remember what I need to pin, unpin or box.
  - mutatio 5y ago
    Agree there, I've yet to achieve async enlightenment where Box/Pin isn't a case of trial and error.
nicoburns 5y ago
It's not too bad, but a language server works entirely with file IO and local network requests which are all quick anyway so I doubt they'd see much benefit. File IO is actually slower when done asynchronously unless you use io-uring which hardly anything support yet.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- the_duke 5y ago
  The more relevant point is that async is good for IO concurrency. But a LSP mostly deals with a single request at a time by a single client. The network and disk IO is a tiny part (after the initial startup scan). Most of the work is CPU bound. So async really doesn't get you much.
  - codeflo 5y ago
    The “initial scan” scenario also happens after git operations like pull, checkout etc. When working in a team where you pull and push often, it’s a real quality of life improvement if the IDE adapts quickly, so I wouldn’t dismiss that completely. Async is also okay (not perfect) for CPU parallelism, with tokio::spawn etc., which I think is important for fast incremental compilation once everything is in RAM. To pick an example, let’s say you change the type of a widely used function, now you have to typecheck the entire project again. If I were to design a language server, my hope would be to achieve both good IO interleaving and good CPU parallelism with a single async based design.
  - matklad 5y ago
    >But a LSP mostly deals with a single request at a time by a single client. Not really —- there’s bowl of spaghetti worth of concurrency in LSP. All of the following things can happen at the same time, and they use the same state: * several read-only requests from the client (compute completion *and* highlighting) * write request from the client (the user typed a comment in Cargo.toml) * write request from file system (user switched branches can Cargo.lock is now different) * background project update (cargo metadata finished with a new project model) * background compiler update (cargo check emitted a new diagnostic) * updates on background “indexing” which were kicked in quiescent state That’s significantly more logical concurrency than in a typical HTTP server, where each request is conceptually independent from every other and all the hard synchronization bits lie in the database. To manage this complexity, csp-style APIs (async/await and blocking threads) don’t really work, as there’s too much fundamental shared mutable state. What sort-of-works (but still is complex) is an explicit actor model, where you manually code the state machine and explicitly resolve the conflicts of the style “ok, I got results from cargo metadata, so I could spawn cargo check, but I also know that the user changed Cargo.toml in the meantime, so the results of metadata are actually stale and I better re-run that”.
Ciantic 5y ago
IMO it is, and usually the benefits of async Rust aren't that great for simple projects. To me the biggest annoyances is fractured nature of async libraries, you have to choose runtime and then the libraries. Tokio or async-std? They are working to fix it, but until some sort of "official" standard library for async exists it remains fractured... Secondly adding some parallelization in normal "vanilla" Rust with std seems rather easy with channels and Rayon, so I'm not looking to retry async rust if I don't have to.
- codeflo 5y ago
  The fact that the Rust project resists standardizing too early — which could lead to being stuck with a bad design — is in my opinion one of its virtues. But I agree that we’re past that point at least for simple async worker threads and simple IO. I don’t follow the progress that closely, but I think work is happening towards standardization there.
  - Ciantic 5y ago
    > The fact that the Rust project resists standardizing too early — which could lead to being stuck with a bad design — is in my opinion one of its virtues. I think the same way, and was enthusiastic of async Rust at the beginning, but right now I think it has caused a mess in libraries. Maybe they did the standardization way too early? Maybe they could have waited until the async libraries can be separated from runtimes, which I think they are now planning to do. If you start to dig through otherwise useful libraries you see a divide to those who async and those who don't, and top of that which runtime they have chosen. Mixing and matching between those is painful.
- pornel 5y ago
  In practice there's no fragmentation problem: you use tokio, and never think about async-std again (despite the name, async-std is not standard/official in any way). Everyone supports tokio, and there isn't anything unique to async-std that doesn't have a tokio alternative. This state totally sucks for the authors of async-std who have an uphill battle getting traction in the tokio-dominated ecosystem, but from user perspective you can pretend the problem doesn't exist. Treat tokio as the standard library, as if it was hardcoded and you had no choice on the matter.

mutatio 5y ago

In my experience, for the basics, Rust async is great, it gets messier around more complex things, e.g. async database transaction retries or async-at-depth type flows - also, async traits are not available yet as standard (there is a crate available).

codeflo 5y ago
For procedural code, async is fine. I still hate writing anything resembling a higher-order function (a function that takes or returns a function) in async Rust. The type constraints become longer than the code, and I can never seem to remember what I need to pin, unpin or box.
- mutatio 5y ago
  Agree there, I've yet to achieve async enlightenment where Box/Pin isn't a case of trial and error.

nicoburns 5y ago

It's not too bad, but a language server works entirely with file IO and local network requests which are all quick anyway so I doubt they'd see much benefit. File IO is actually slower when done asynchronously unless you use io-uring which hardly anything support yet.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
the_duke 5y ago
The more relevant point is that async is good for IO concurrency. But a LSP mostly deals with a single request at a time by a single client. The network and disk IO is a tiny part (after the initial startup scan). Most of the work is CPU bound. So async really doesn't get you much.
- codeflo 5y ago
  The “initial scan” scenario also happens after git operations like pull, checkout etc. When working in a team where you pull and push often, it’s a real quality of life improvement if the IDE adapts quickly, so I wouldn’t dismiss that completely. Async is also okay (not perfect) for CPU parallelism, with tokio::spawn etc., which I think is important for fast incremental compilation once everything is in RAM. To pick an example, let’s say you change the type of a widely used function, now you have to typecheck the entire project again. If I were to design a language server, my hope would be to achieve both good IO interleaving and good CPU parallelism with a single async based design.
- matklad 5y ago
  >But a LSP mostly deals with a single request at a time by a single client. Not really —- there’s bowl of spaghetti worth of concurrency in LSP. All of the following things can happen at the same time, and they use the same state: * several read-only requests from the client (compute completion *and* highlighting) * write request from the client (the user typed a comment in Cargo.toml) * write request from file system (user switched branches can Cargo.lock is now different) * background project update (cargo metadata finished with a new project model) * background compiler update (cargo check emitted a new diagnostic) * updates on background “indexing” which were kicked in quiescent state That’s significantly more logical concurrency than in a typical HTTP server, where each request is conceptually independent from every other and all the hard synchronization bits lie in the database. To manage this complexity, csp-style APIs (async/await and blocking threads) don’t really work, as there’s too much fundamental shared mutable state. What sort-of-works (but still is complex) is an explicit actor model, where you manually code the state machine and explicitly resolve the conflicts of the style “ok, I got results from cargo metadata, so I could spawn cargo check, but I also know that the user changed Cargo.toml in the meantime, so the results of metadata are actually stale and I better re-run that”.

Ciantic 5y ago

IMO it is, and usually the benefits of async Rust aren't that great for simple projects. To me the biggest annoyances is fractured nature of async libraries, you have to choose runtime and then the libraries. Tokio or async-std? They are working to fix it, but until some sort of "official" standard library for async exists it remains fractured... Secondly adding some parallelization in normal "vanilla" Rust with std seems rather easy with channels and Rayon, so I'm not looking to retry async rust if I don't have to.

codeflo 5y ago
The fact that the Rust project resists standardizing too early — which could lead to being stuck with a bad design — is in my opinion one of its virtues. But I agree that we’re past that point at least for simple async worker threads and simple IO. I don’t follow the progress that closely, but I think work is happening towards standardization there.
- Ciantic 5y ago
  > The fact that the Rust project resists standardizing too early — which could lead to being stuck with a bad design — is in my opinion one of its virtues. I think the same way, and was enthusiastic of async Rust at the beginning, but right now I think it has caused a mess in libraries. Maybe they did the standardization way too early? Maybe they could have waited until the async libraries can be separated from runtimes, which I think they are now planning to do. If you start to dig through otherwise useful libraries you see a divide to those who async and those who don't, and top of that which runtime they have chosen. Mixing and matching between those is painful.
pornel 5y ago
In practice there's no fragmentation problem: you use tokio, and never think about async-std again (despite the name, async-std is not standard/official in any way). Everyone supports tokio, and there isn't anything unique to async-std that doesn't have a tokio alternative. This state totally sucks for the authors of async-std who have an uphill battle getting traction in the tokio-dominated ecosystem, but from user perspective you can pretend the problem doesn't exist. Treat tokio as the standard library, as if it was hardcoded and you had no choice on the matter.