I freely admit I’m frustrated by the discourse around async Rust! I’m also very frustrated because I feel I was iced out of the project for petty reasons to do with whom I’m friends with and the people who were supposed to take over my work have done a very poor job, hence the failure to ship much of value to users. What we shipped in 2019 was an MVP that was intended to be followed by several improvements in quick succession, which the Rust project is only now moving toward delivering. I’ve written about this extensively.

My opinion is that async Rust is an incredible achievement, primarily not mine (among the people who deserve more credit than me are Alex Crichton, Carl Lerche, and Aaron Turon). My only really significant contributions were making it safe to use references in an async function and documenting how to interface with completion based APIs like io-uring correctly. So it is very frustrating to see the discourse focused on inaccurate statements about async Rust which I believe is the best system for async IO in any language and which just needs to be finished.

> So it is very frustrating to see the discourse focused on inaccurate statements about async Rust

> No, ajross is very confidently making false descriptions of how async Rust and io-using operate. This website favors people who sound right whether or not they are, because most readers are not well informed but have a ridiculous confidence that they can infer what is true based on the tone and language used by a commenter. I find this deplorable and think this website is a big part of why discourse around computer science is so ignorant, and I respond accordingly when someone confronts me with comments like this.

They had an inaccurate (from your point of view) understanding. That's all. If they were wrong that's not a reason to attack them. If you think they were over-confident (personally I don't) that's still not a reason to attack them.

Again, I think ajross set out their understanding in a clear and polite manner. You should correct them in a similar manner.

> has argued endlessly with those who don't like the tradeoffs but only have a surface level understanding of the problem

But that's really not what's going on here.

ajross has an understanding of the fundamentals of async that is different to withoutboats'. ajross is setting this out in a clear and polite way that seems to be totally in good faith.

withoutboats is responding in an extremely rude and insulting manner. Regardless of whether they are right or not (and given their background they probably are), they are absolutely in the wrong to adopt this tone.

>ajross has an understanding of the fundamentals of async that is different to withoutboats'.

ajross has an understanding of the fundamentals of async, but a surface level understanding of io-uring and Rust async. It's 100% what is going on, and again, it something I've seen play out 100s of times.

>Rust assumes as part of its model that "state only changes when polled".

This is fundamentally wrong. If you have a surface level understanding of how the Rust state-machine works, you could make this inference, but it's wrong. This premise is wrong, so ajross' mental model is flawed - and withoutboats is at a loss of trying to educate people who get the basic facts wrong and has defaulted to curt expression. And I get it - you see it a lot with academic types when someone with a wikipedia overview of a subject tries to "debate". You either have to do an impromptu of 101 level material that is freely available or you just say "you're wrong". Neither tends to work.

I'm not saying I condone withoutboats' tone, but my comment is really just a funny anecdote because withoutboats engages in this often and I've seen his tone shift from the "try to educate" to the "you're just wrong" over the past 6 years.

Alternatively there's a problem with being "really in the weeds" of any problem in that you fail to poke your head up to understand other paradigms and how they interact.

I live in very different weeds, and I read the linked article and went "Oh, yeah, duh, it's racing on the io-uring buffer". And tried to explain that as a paradigm collision (because it is). And I guess that tries the patience of people who think hard about async[1] but never about concurrency and parallelism.

[1] A name that drives systems geeks like me bananas because everything in an async programming solution IS SYNCHRONOUS in the way we understand the word!