[delusional]

The author starts by citing greenspun's tenth rule and goes on to elaborate on the argument that if you are going to have a half implementation of async anyway, why not just pull it in? Yet fails to interrogate the relationship between this argument and the cited "rule". If you should use async because you might need it in the future, shouldn't we all be writing in lisp?

If we presuppose that all software eventually develops an async, and we therefore should use async. Would it not stand to reason that greenspun's rule that all software contains a lisp would imply that we must also all use lisp?

[Arnavion]

The author said what you wrote in the first sentence, ie "use async if you are going to have a half implementation of async anyway". "Use async because you might need it in the future" is something you made up, not what the author said.

[delusional]

greenspun's tenth rule is about the inevitability of the half baked implementation of lisp. By evoking the sentiment of the rule the author is implicitly making the argument that all "sufficiently complicated programs" will eventually contain a half baked implementation of async.

The implicit argument doesn't stand alone though. The author goes on to write:

> It happens like this: programs are naturally complicated. Even the simple, Unix-esque atomic programs can’t help but do two or three things at once. Okay, now you set it up so, instead of waiting on read or accept or whatnot, you register your file descriptors into poll and wait on that, then switching on the result of poll to figure out what you actually want to do.

The implication is clear. Even simple programs will eventually require async, and should therefore just use it right now. unix-esque in this paragraph is supposed to evoke ls or cat. Is your program really going to be simpler than cat? No? Then you apparently need async.

[Arnavion]

>The implication is clear. Even simple programs will eventually require async, and should therefore just use it right now.

There's no implication. Read what you quoted instead of digging for quick jabs. "Even the simple, Unix-esque atomic programs can’t help but do two or three things at once. Okay, now you set it up so, instead of waiting on read or accept or whatnot..."

>unix-esque in this paragraph is supposed to evoke ls or cat. Is your program really going to be simpler than cat? No? Then you apparently need async.

cat and ls don't do two or three things at once.

[orangea]

The rule isn't really about lisp, it's about the kinds of functions and structures you find in the standard library of a typical programming language, such as strings and arrays and file IO and so on. Rust already has those things so your argument doesn't really apply.