> what the futures.rs authors decided to do: cram futures.rs into std and add an entire language feature to hide the bloat behind a code generator.

First the post establishes a problem with `futures-rs`- combinators and their associated binary bloat. Then in this quote it assumes that the bloat will carry over to the std-based futures used for async/await, even though the express purpose of std futures and async/await is to replace combinators with exactly what the author wants- generators.

> the rust equivalent would be slightly uglier, because generators can’t have continuation arguments

The next thing it assumes will carry over is the thread-local executor. (Or that's how I read it; it's a little unclear- maybe it means tokio's default executor?) But this complaint also doesn't apply to async/await, which has converted to an executor argument (`Waker`) to `Future::poll`, which is again exactly what the author wants- a continuation argument to the generator.

> its in no way fancy, but has two significant advantages over async/await. Firstly, it emits a generator without a specific execution engine.

>

> Secondly, Result just works as intended. There’s no need to wrap it in FutureResult because no such type exists.

>

> Lastly, sync is just: [polling and yielding in a loop] so anything that returns Ready/Again is sync. There is no task queue, no singleton, nothing ‘magic’.

These last criticisms of futures and async/await are the most baffling. Futures have always been agnostic to the execution engine, even in the 0.1 form, to a greater degree than osaka. The std version of futures already just uses `Result`. And `await` is just polling and yielding in a loop. The task queue is osaka's `yield poll.again(..)`, the (actually non-)singleton is osaka's `poll` argument, and the "magic" is that `poll` is only accessible from manual `Future::poll` impls.

This all seems like very surface-level stuff to me- hardly something that would prevent anyone from using async/await on embedded. The execution model is identical. I saw [this tweet](https://twitter.com/arvidep/status/1092818400798298114) saying "you cannot create a push based executor" and [this tweet](https://twitter.com/arvidep/status/1092823133390864385) saying "any [Future-based] alternatives need to look like tokio," but it's unclear to me exactly what is changing here, compared to existing embedded uses of async/await.