2 ms·
I think you are correct, in so far that often N:M threading is overkill for the problem at hand. However, some IO bound problems truly do require it. I haven't
by K0nserv 5mo ago
I think you are correct, in so far that often N:M threading is overkill for the problem at hand. However, some IO bound problems truly do require it. I haven't kept up with the details, but AFAIK the fallout from Spectre and Meltdown also means context switches are more expensive than they were historically, which is another downside with regular threads.
I also want to address something that I've seen in several sub-threads here: Rust's specific async implementation. The key limitation, compared to the likes of Go and JS, is that Rust attempts to implement async as a zero-cost abstraction, which is a much harder problem than what Go and JS does. Saying some variant of "Rust should just do the same thing as Go", is missing the point.
- groundzeros2015 5mo agoI think rust didn’t need async at all.
- aw1621107 5mo agoThe question then becomes what, if anything, should take its place, and what are the corresponding tradeoffs?