[singledigits]

Thank you for asking!

I've skimmed through Taskflow, and from what I understand, its main focus is on graph parallelism, allowing users to express computations as a graph.

I haven't done extensive benchmarking against 3rd-party libraries yet, which others have also mentioned. I'll definitely do more performance testing in the future to better assess and optimize performance.

[ska]

I think that’s about right on focus, I brought it up more for the “modern c++” aspect…

[singledigits]

Thank you for clearing that up.

Regarding modern features, for example, the return value from the executor in TaskFlow is a custom tf::Future derived from std::future. This means if you want to check for the result, you need to use a try-catch block with the get() method on the future.

Personally, I prefer using std::expected for value/exception handling. It allows checking for errors with a simple if statement, and if you don't want to handle the exception, you can just return an error value from the coroutine.

As for "monadic-chaining," TaskFlow can achieve the same thing with its easy graph construction, you can set up a graph and execute it, which is comparable to and_then chaining in my library.

Another point is related to performance and ease of use. In a simple example like Fibonacci, TaskFlow requires using subflows, which I feel is less "ergonomic".

Overall, for simple task parallelism, if you don't need the graph expressiveness of TaskFlow, I believe my library is a more "ergonomic" choice (though I may be biased here). I also find value handling simpler in my library with std::expected. That said, TaskFlow is a much larger library with more features like GPU integration.

I hope this better addresses your point!