[brink]

use std::{ sync::{ Arc, atomic::{AtomicBool, AtomicUsize, Ordering}, }, time::Duration, };

fn main() { let num = Arc::new(AtomicUsize::new(0)); let finished = Arc::new(AtomicBool::new(false));

    for _ in 0..10 {
        std::thread::spawn({
            let num = num.clone();
            let finished = finished.clone();
            move || {
                while !finished.load(Ordering::SeqCst) {
                    num.fetch_add(1, Ordering::SeqCst);
                }
            }
        });
    }

    std::thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(1000));
    finished.store(true, Ordering::SeqCst);
}

[neonsunset]

What if we want to avoid explicitly spawning threads and blocking the current one every time we do this? Task.Run does not create a new thread besides those that are already in the threadpool (which can auto-scale, sure, but you get the idea, assuming the use of Tokio here).

[brink]

What you're asking for is thread parking. Use tokio for that, it's still trivial.

[neonsunset]

I was implying that yes, while it is doable, it comes at 5x cognitive cost because of micromanagement it requires. This is somewhat doctored example but the "decision fatigue" that comes with writing Rust is very real. You write C# code, like in the example above, quickly without having to ponder on how you should approach it and move on to other parts of the application while in Rust there's a good chance you will be forced to deal with it in a much stricter way. It's less so of an issue in regular code but the moment you touch async - something that .NET's task and state machine abstractions solve on your behalf you will be forced to deal with by hand. This is, obviously, a tradeoff. There is no way for .NET to use async to implement bare metal cooperative multi-tasking, while it is very real and highly impressive ability of Rust. But you don't always need that, and C# offers an ability to compete with Rust and C++ in performance in critical paths when you need to sit down and optimize it unmatched by other languages of "similar" class (e.g. Java, Go). At the end of the day, both languages have domains they are strong at. C# suffers from design decisions that it cannot walk back and subpar developer culture (and poor program architecture preferences), Rust suffers from being abrasive in some scenarios and overly ceremonious in others. But other than that both provide excellent sets of tradeoffs. In 2025, we're spoiled with choice when it comes to performant memory-safe programming languages.

[Maxatar]

To be honest this sounds like something someone inexperienced would do in any language.

If you're not comfortable in a language, then sure you ponder and pontificate and wonder about what the right approach is, but if you're experienced and familiar then you just do it plain and simple.

What you're describing is not at all a language issue, it's an issue of familiarity and competency.

[brink]

It's literally not 5x the cost, it would take me 3 minutes to whip up a tokio example. I've done both. I like C# too, I totally understand why you like it so much. This is not a C# vs Rust argument for me. All I'm saying is that Rust is a productive language.

[pdimitar]

Rust is manual by design because people need to micro-manage resources. If you are experienced in it, it still takes a very little time to code your scenario.

Obviously if you don't like the manual-ness of Rust, just use something else. For what you described I'd reach for Elixir or Golang.

I was disagreeing with you that it's not easy or too difficult. Rust just takes a bit of effort and ramping up to get good at. I hated it as well to begin with.

But again -- niches. Rust serves its niche extremely well. For other niches there are other languages and runtimes.

[neonsunset]

[flagged]

[pdimitar]

Downgrade compared to what?

One-liners work best in comedy, dude.