3 ms·
I’m not a fan. Async is a superset of sync and it would be much better long term if the overhead of an immediately fulfilled future could be optimized out by th
by jupp0r 4y ago
I’m not a fan. Async is a superset of sync and it would be much better long term if the overhead of an immediately fulfilled future could be optimized out by the compiler at compile time and be properly reflected by the type system without having to shoehorn this on from the outside.
- GolDDranks 4y agoI'm not sure whether I follow. Are you saying that basically everything should be async, but the compiler should just optimize that away when it's not "actually" async? Or did I misunderstand you.
- jupp0r 4y agoExactly. This is also necessary for the example code in the keyword generics proposal. You still need to write a .await and treat everything as being potentially async. Compare this to C++20s coroutine design where you practically have a zero overhead abstraction that might or might not be async without the author of the function having to necessarily know. They just yield control flow back to the caller who might suspend execution or not. I’m not saying that one design is better than the other, just that this seems to be a bandaid on top of existing tradeoffs made in Rust’s async design that is only 2 years old.