The reason for avoiding OS threads is not only the cost of creating them, but also the overhead of scheduling them. The kernel uses preemptive multitasking, so

The reason for avoiding OS threads is not only the cost of creating them, but also the overhead of scheduling them. The kernel uses preemptive multitasking, so it does work to determine when it should switch control between threads, and which threads should be running, and there is a cost of performing that context switch. The OS also can tell from syscalls when a thread is waiting on I/O. Java virtual threads are more similar to async/await since they are a form of cooperative multitasking. That is, virtual threads must explicitly tell the runtime when they are ready to yield execution to other tasks. In practice, the programmer does not need to do this manually; the low-level 'blocking' operations in the JDK have been modified to signal this state. This is why you do not need to use an explicit syntax like async/await. Under the bonnet, virtual threads are mounted and unmounted to/from platform threads (JVM wrappers for OS threads) in a pool. All of this involves overhead of copying virtual thread contexts to and from the heap, and of managing the scheduling of virtual threads. Why don't other languages use this implicit approach? I am sure there a various reasons, but I cannot really speak to them in specifics. I would be interested to know as well. I would guess that the overhead of the implementation is one major reason.