Well, yes and no. Yes: because the language has distinct semantics for asynchrony which fundamentally* cannot be made synchronous, it is good that the language

Well, yes and no. Yes: because the language has distinct semantics for asynchrony which fundamentally* cannot be made synchronous, it is good that the language also makes that fundamental inability explicit, and inviolable. No: the above reasoning is inherently tautological! It’s effectively arguing that it’s good that the language doesn’t have a massive inconsistency between two deeply coupled aspects of the same semantics. That is good! But it’s the kind of good you kind of have to expect, or treat as a tragic design flaw in its absence. * There are some exceptions, but they’re generally esoteric or niche or have other important caveats.