I heard it uses locks?

This is not on the same memory right? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21469295

If you want to do joint (on the same memory) parallel HTTP with Java I have a stable solution for you: https://github.com/tinspin/rupy

std provides some useful helpers like Arc and Mutex (Arc<Mutex<Type>> is always safe to use across threads, as the lifetime is managed safely by Arc and accesses handled by Mutex).

There are crates out there for things like lock free sync and other GC if you need it. Rust doesn't force you into a single world view.

So while I don't think what I said was incorrect re: Go vs Rust concurrency, perhaps I misunderstood OPs question.

> Mutexes and locks and all the other ways of doing parallel work that is "safe" isn't a primitive thats cooked in with the language.

I didn't understand OPs question as strictly features cooked into the language, so I was not saying that.

With that said, if you're not allowing for Mutexes for "safe things that are cooked into the language" I feel like you won't like Rust. This is an odd metric, though.

edit: words

See my example where a pure-rust postgres extension can start a background worker, listen on a port, and handle concurrent network requests, multiplexing them over a single backend calling a non-thread-safe internal postgres API.

That's possible because rust has no runtime to get in the way, it can use C structs natively and seamlessly, tokio offers the CurrentThread runtime (which doesn't spawn new threads), and a bunch of other details that need to be done right.

Try doing that in a pure-Go postgres extension.

This is the challenge and async await lets you make this kind of self referential types without unsafe code.

i guess the difference from normal threads (preemptive multitasking) is that you explicitly mark your "yield points" – places where your code gives control back to the runner – with `await` (cooperative multitasking). some believe that this makes async stuff easier to reason about, since in theory you can see the points where stuff might happen concurrently

honestly i'm out of my depth re: async IO, haven't used it all that much :/ but if you're comfortable with python and want to dig into the mechanism of async/await, i really recommend this article: https://snarky.ca/how-the-heck-does-async-await-work-in-pyth...

it's long, but i found it very helpful – it actually explains how it all works without handwaviness. at the end the author implements a toy "event loop" that can run a few timers concurrently, which really made it click for me!

However, Project Loom doesn't fit into the "zero cost abstraction" paradigm of rust. Project Loom requires quite a lot of support form the JVM runtime:

> The main technical mission in implementing continuations — and indeed, of this entire project — is adding to HotSpot the ability to capture, store and resume callstacks not as part of kernel threads. JNI stack frames will likely not be supported.

It also still require manual suspension so JIT compiled tight loops will likely still cause a problem.

Your explanations were surprisingly simple

Errr, no. You either poll, or set up an interrupt to catch an event. The point of an interrupt is to allow other code to continue to run while waiting for a peripheral.

Looks like a great project, best of luck.

You can even express algorithmic complexity in a language.

But it's a bit more complex than that, really. You will have a harder time saying "this loop will block the event system for longer than I'd like".

Theoretically, yes. In practice, people are just copying Python mistakes word-for-word, in an attempt to score the "coolness" factor that async garnered in the Python community. (Never mind that the "coolness" came from solving a problem that doesn't even exist in other languages...)

If you want to see what asynchronous programming would look like if it weren't copied from Python, look at the recent C++ proposal.

> - If you don't need it, don't use it. Rust without asynchronous functions still looks and works like before

The problem is that every Python library now comes in two versions, regular and 'async'. Even if you don't need or care about anything 'async'.

I guess splintering your code base into two incompatible flavors is just the pythonic way of doing things? Now that the 2 vs 3 insanity is finally dying down, they needed to start a fresh one?

Why is Rust trying hard to repeat these mistakes?

> - By the way: welcome to C++20's coroutines

That I already answered above.

This is actually possible to do by using async blocks instead of async functions. E.G. you can write this:

    fn test() -> impl Future<Output = ()> {
        // Run some things directly here
        println!("I am running in the current frame");
        async {
            // Run some things in the await
            println!("I am running in the .await");
        }
    }

Having said that, the combination of par/or and par/and constructs for parallel trails of execution, and code/await for reactive objects is like nothing I have ever seen in other languages (it's a little bit actor-modelish, but not quite). I haven't looked closely at Rust though.

Céu also claims to have deterministic concurrency. What it means by that is that when multiple trails await the same external event, they are awakened in lexical order. So for a given sequence of external events in a given order, execution behavior should be deterministic. This kind of determinism seems to be true for all synchronous reactive languages[0]. Is the (single-threaded) concurrency model in Rust comparable here?

The thesis is a bit out of date (only slightly though), the manual for v0.30 or the online playground might be a better start[1][2].

[0] which is like... three languages in total, hahaha. I don't even remember the third one beyond Esterel and Céu. The determinism is quite important though, because Esterel was designed with safety-critical systems in mind.

[1] https://ceu-lang.github.io/ceu/out/manual/v0.30/

[2] http://ceu-lang.org/try.php

If you take on a few limitations you can get there, but then those are exactly the things people complain about.

That sounds very promising, I should give it a closer look (I don't program in Rust myself so I only read blogs out of intellectual curiosity)

A future in rust is really just a trait that implements a `poll` function, whose return type is either "Pending" or "Ready<T>". When you create a future, you're just instantiating a type implementing that function.

For a future to make progress, you need to call its poll function. A totally valid (if very inefficient) strategy is to repeatedly call the Future's poll function in a loop until it returns Ready.

All the `await` keyword does is propagate the Pending case up. It can be expanded trivially to the following:

    match future.poll() {
        Pending => return Pending,
        Ready(val) => val
    }

So if you want to start a future, you will either have to spawn it as a top-level future (in which case you cannot get its output or know when it finishes executing unless you use channels) or you join it with other sub-futures so that all your different work will progress simultaneously. Note that you can join multiple time, so you can start two futures, join them, and have one of those futures also start two futures and join them, there's no problem here.

Another difference with Rust is that async functions are stackless. Go has to contend with having a non-conventional stack and interoperability with C code (and sometimes syscalls, vDSO, etc.) that expects a relatively large stack requires pivoting.

I do wish Rust could solve this problem, but the two approaches are very different indeed. I think it’s a fact of life that accidental blocking will exist in Rust, approaches that prevent it are complicated and indeed have runtime costs.

I did not suggest that it do so. In fact, I suggested an approach that wouldn't fit for Go!

In Go, you've got pretty strict modular compilation. Because of this, specialization -- which is pervasive in Rust -- is virtually absent in Go. Rust's rich generics system demands robust specialization machinery. This machinery, which handles instantiation of explicit generics, can be repurposed to handle automatic instantiation of implicit generics. In this case, I'm suggesting that a function could be compiled as either synchronous or asynchronous as determined by the use-site.

> In Rust, every bit of async implementation (futures, schedulers, etc) is a library

Nothing about my suggestion precludes this.

I think the question you're asking is, "are deadlocks possible?" and the answer to that seems like it would be yes. I would hope that Rust's memory model makes accidental memory sharing dependencies & deadlocks harder to cause, but you can always create 8 threads waiting on a mutex and a 9th that will release it, and have the 8 spinlock on the waiting part.

The "async-std" library, one of a few attempts to write async-aware primitive functions around blocking calls to the filesystem, mutexes, etc, implements async wrappers around mutex and others that should ensure that yield points are correctly inserted and the task goes back into the queues if it's blocked.

That seems to me the right solution - make sure all your blocking calls with a potential for deadlocking check "am I blocked?" first and if so, put themselves back onto the task queue instead of spinning.

On a semi-related note, any thoughts on how you could merge Async with non-Async code? Eg, I've got a large codebase that is not threaded but not Async. In the future, I might upgrade the web server to be Async and slowly start porting code.

I had planned/hoped that I could make my own Async/Thread bridge. Such that non-Async code would live in it's own thread, and I would make a special Future ask a Mutex in another thread if data is available. Taking special care not to lock the Future's thread.

The goal of course is to not have to rewrite the entire app's blocking code at once.

Does this sound stupid to you?

The only question is, can you express some of the state-relations as serial code? If "relationships became intricate (a computation graph)", chances are, you shouldn't use serial code anymore, because that splits dependencies in a two-class society: those that are expressed using code and those that are expressed using dead data. It is usually preferable to specify everything as dead data if the relationships get complex, and to then code sort of a virtual machine that "executes" the data.

So it's in fact the simple cases that lend themselves to being expressed as serial code. I won't argue with that there are nice looking example usages. Problem is, as always, systems that help making the simple things easy often make the hard things impossible.

Traits are a big one for me. Though, I've seen good things with the Async Trait Macro libraries. So hopefully those do good.

It doesn't make this Async-Stable event any less big of course, not trying to downplay it. We can't really move forward without this, so I'm super happy to see it merged! I'm just hoping to manage expectations :)

This is usually false, in Rust and elsewhere. Futures are tasks that run on whatever thread is scheduling them. They are an even lighter-weight version of green threads/fibers/M:N.

This is the value people get out of async only environments like node. Yes, you still have to worry about costly for loops but I don't have to worry about which database driver I'm using because they are all async. In a mixed paradigm language like rust I would really appreciate the compiler telling me I grabbed the wrong database driver.

BTW this is a big pain point for me (unrelated to async). Code like this:

  let ref = &mut self.field;
  self.helper_mutating_another_field();
  do_something(ref);

Of course it is preferable that all information needed for the caller to check if the call is correct is contained in the function signature but it truly is frustrating to see the function body right there, know that it doesn't violate borrowing rules and still get the code calling it rejected.

To further frame that question: I had assumed Rust was implementing Async within the capabilities of normal Rust. Such that, if lifetimes were being managed across function bounds, I assumed the lifetime would have "simply" been bound to the scope of the executor, polling the future you're actively waiting on.

However quickly I can see confusions in that description. Normal lifetimes within a function would need to bubble up and be managed by a parent, since that function's lifetime is, as you put it, being jumped in and out of frequently.

So I imagine that is partly where new features come into play? Giving Rust the ability to take a normal lifetime and extend or manage it in new ways?

https://docs.rs/futures/0.3.0/futures/stream/trait.StreamExt...

Not only does the `futures` crate provide most things you'd ever want, it also has no special treatment – you can implements your own combinators in the same way that `futures` implements them if you need something off of the beaten path.

Additionally, you're making snarky comments about how you don't like how the base language doesn't handle something like JS...then reference a third party JS library. Base JS doesn't solve your 'problem' either.

To answer your question, async/await provides hooks for an executor (tokio being the most common) to run your code. You things like that in the executor.

https://docs.rs/tokio/0.2.0-alpha.6/tokio/executor/index.htm...

The primitive operation provided by a Rust `Future` is `poll`. Calling `some_future.poll(waker)` advances it forward if possible, and stashes `waker` somewhere for it to be signaled when `some_future` is ready to run again.

So the implementation of `join` is fairly straightforward: It constructs a new future wrapping its arguments, which when polled itself, re-polls each of them with the same waker it was passed.

There are also more elaborate schemes- e.g. `FuturesUnordered` uses a separate waker for each sub-future, so it can handle larger numbers of them at some coordination cost.

And from a quick scan of the source it doesn't look like anything there is impossible to implement in userspace: https://docs.rs/futures-util/0.3.0/src/futures_util/future/j...

> One has a stack, and the other doesn't. That's a significant difference.

They both have some memory area to which they write state. Calling it "a stack" refers to the abstraction in the programmer's mind, not to how the memory is actually written/read. It is true that in order to support recursion, a thread might need to dynamically allocate memory, but so would async/await, except it'll make it more explicit.

OS threads can be expensive, so libraries try to only create a few OS threads.

A “hot loop” (usually, I think, called a “tight loop”) is a loop that does a lot of work for a relatively large amount of time all at once. Things like “looping through a list of every building an Manhattan and getting the average price over two decades.”

With some code like networking, you end up having to wait on other parts of the computer besides the CPU often, for things like uploads and downloads.

“Asynchronous programming” tried to make it easy to keep the CPU busy doing helpful things, even while some of it’s jobs are stuck waiting on uploads/downloads/whatever. This keeps the program efficient, because it can do a little bit of many tasks at once instead of having to complete each task entirely before moving on to the next.

The problem comes when you have a tight loop in a thread that is mostly expecting to be doing asynchronous work around I/O or networking. It is basically trying to juggle with one hand. The program can’t multitask as well, and you end up having to wait longer before it can start each piece of work you want.

If you're doing a hot loop, which may be synchronous, you will block the event loop attached to that OS thread, because a hot loop is presumably not yielding control until it is done.

If you don't want to deal with async functions, then you can use threads! That's what they're there for. On Linux they're quite fast. Async is for when you need more performance than what 1:1 or M:N threading can provide.

> But if you have threads (green- or OS-level), you don’t need to do that. You can just suspend the entire thread and hop straight back to the OS or event loop without having to return from all of those functions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the lack of threads one of the biggest reasons why NodeJS originally outperformed most of its competitors?

Spinning up threads for each concurrent request was expensive, and (nonblocking) async code was by comparison ridiculously cheap, so the lack of overhead meant Node could just make everything async, instead of trying to decide up-front which tasks deserved which resources.

Granted, it's been over a decade since Node came out. Maybe thread overhead has gotten a lot better? But barring faulty memory, I definitely remember a number of people explaining to me back then that being single-threaded was the point.

Thanks for the explanation

I wonder what is the point where each trade off make sense (ie. what is consider heavy computation vs light computation, it probably is related to OS thread allocation time)

We tried it. It was too slow.

Eg, fundamentally I feel like you're making a distinction between blocking I/o and a "blocking" for loop. At the end of the day, they're the same in my view - one is just more likely to be costly.

So I think for this feature to be done right, we'd have to somehow be able to analyze the likelihood of an expensive operation - and the negative consequence that action might have on the rest of the workload. Eg, I would want the same hypothetical behavior and compile-time warnings/errors that a huge file-load might cause, with a huge loop.

Otherwise a simple function call which involves no I/O and looks innocent could have the same terrible behavior as some I/O call does.

Defining that, and informing the compiler seems obscenely difficult. To that degree, I think any interaction with any sort of heap-y thing like iterating over a Vec would have to error the compiler if used in a Future context.

_everything_ would have to be willing to yield. Not sure I like it. Interesting thought experiment though. I imagine some GC languages do exactly this.

I must rewrite all the calls?

The blocking IO might be something in Rust that a type could be created for to denote that they are not async, and therefor warn you in some way, but I think that one is easy to detect in testing.

This is basically a code audit problem.

Of course something like taint analysis could also work. Every such callsite should be counted as tainted unless it gets wrapped with something that's whitelisted (or uses the right marker type wrapper).

Even effects as types can't help much, because the basic interfere to the kernels (Linux, WinNT, etc.) are not typesafe, and as long as the language provides FFI/syscall interfaces you have to audit/trust the codebase/ecosystem.

The only way to get around the FFI performance problem would be for all fibers to have big stacks. At that point you've thrown away their biggest selling points: high scalability and fast spawning.