3 ms·
If the two calls are sequential then simply: var x = someFunction() someOtherFunction() If you would have written var xTask = SomeFunctionAsync(); aw
by gf000 18d ago
If the two calls are sequential then simply:
var x = someFunction()
someOtherFunction()
If you would have written
var xTask = SomeFunctionAsync();
await WaitForSomeOtherFunctionAsync();
string x = await xTask;
then it would be:
try (var scope = StructuredTaskScope.open()) { // JDK 24+ preview feature
var x = scope.fork(() -> someFunction());
scope.fork(() -> waitForSomeOtherFunction());
scope.join();
String result = x.get(); // already completed
}
- troupo 18d agoawait implies async functions. Looks like Java's "there is no simpler syntax than plain old synchronous code" is just a lot of extra manual wrangling of stuff
- gf000 18d agoAnd the first two lines are an async function as they are, without any special handling. They won't block the thread, and you can have millions of them. Like it's no accident that c# with their goldfish attention span wanted to ship virtual threads as well next to all their millions of features.