|
|
|
|
|
|
by tialaramex
1472 days ago
|
|
|
It's too vague. The claim is that async "still doesn't really work" but like, how so? Sometimes you could make a claim like that about a feature and it's more or less accurate just as it stands. C++ 20 Modules were like that (still might be like that?) on most platforms, 'cos it turns out that's a lot of work for a compiler to implement and it's important to say you have the feature even if you know it doesn't work well. But even then, I'd rather see e.g. "C++ 20 Modules blow up if I try to A, or B, or C... or Z" it's just that I can understand if your list is a page long "doesn't really work" seems more concise than listing everything. There are clearly people who are frustrated by aspects of Rust's async. Some of those frustrations are fixable, some are consequences of a principle decision that's unlikely to be revisited, and who knows if you won't say what frustrated you Suppose I said Go's generics "don't really work". Do I mean that they aren't monomorphised in the way I hoped? That the syntax is too untidy for me? That the Go libraries aren't yet making them ergonomic? That I found a compiler bug? No way to know. |
|
|