3 ms·
> The important difference is in purpose, not implementation. I couldn't disagree stronger on that one. Abstraction is generally good, but this becomes a purel
by 411111111111111 4y ago
> The important difference is in purpose, not implementation.
I couldn't disagree stronger on that one.
Abstraction is generally good, but this becomes a purely philosophical discussion as soon as you ignore the actual implementation when talking about the differences of how something actuals behaves and should be used. And philosophical discussions like that have their place but are imo pointless in the context of what should be used, when. They're generally better placed in a context of deciding wherever you want to implement an abstraction
I do fundamentally agree with the rest of your comment however.
that's what I meant with trusting your language to prioritize workloads vs your OS.
- jhugo 4y agoI'm not saying that implementation doesn't matter. I'm saying that that there isn't a fundamental implementation difference "async" vs "threads". Threads are used in both cases. It's a different choice of abstractions over the same underlying concepts. FYI, Rust (the language) has no concept of prioritising workloads; there is no async runtime in the language. Even with any of the async runtimes, workloads (i.e. tasks doing work) are prioritised by the OS. It's just threads executing code. Async runtimes are primarily concerned with the gaps between work, like waiting for I/O or other events.