[lmm]

I did read the article; it's overly focused on async (especially the headline). The body quite correctly analyses the problem with functions, but misses that this is much more general than async; just adopting a different async model isn't a solution.

[joubert]

Well, the article’s focus is on asynchrony. Naturally then, it talks about closures within the context of asynchrony and to the extent that it is relevant.

The author could have made the topic about closures, but that’s not what they wanted to talk about.

[lmm]

The author's focus on async leads them to the wrong conclusion. Not adopting async would not have solved the fundamental underlying problem; the perennial issues with error handling in Rust are another manifestation of the same problem, and as soon as people start trying to do things like database transaction management they'll hit the same problem again. Ripping async out of Rust isn't a solution; this problem will come up again and again unless and until Rust implements proper first-class functions.