[selfhoster1312]

What's the alternative? I'm happy to use tokio, but i'm happy other folks can enjoy other executors (smol, async-std, glommio, etc). I think the situation is OK because tokio is well-maintained, even though it's not part of the standard library, and i'm afraid making it part of the standard library would make it harder to use other executors, and harder to port the standard library to other platforms.

But maybe my fears are unfounded.

[nicoburns]

> What's the alternative?

Traits in the stdlib for common functionality like "spawn" (a task) and things like async timers. Then executors could implement those traits and libraries could be generic over them.

[josephg]

Yep. We could have a system like how there's a global system allocator, but you can override it if you want in your app.

We could have something similar for a global async executor which can be overridden. Or maybe you launch your own executor at startup and register it with std, but after that almost all async spawn calls go through std.

And std should have a decent default executor, so if you don't care to customise it, everything should just work out of the box.

[selfhoster1312]

Good point, but the devil lies in the details. How should the timers behave? Is the clock monotonic? Are tasks spawned on the same thread? Different platforms and executors have different opinions. Maybe it's still possible and just a lot of work?

[nicoburns]

> Maybe it's still possible and just a lot of work?

Yeah, I think that's the current status. I believe it was for a long time (and possibly still is) blocked on language improvements to async traits (which didn't exist at all until relatively recently and still don't support dyn trait).

[yarn_]

>the devil lies in the details

This is true, but perhaps not uniquely so, when compared to platform dependence of the standard libary already. File semantics, sync primitive gaurantees and implementations, timers and timer resolutions, etc have subtle differences between platforms that the Rust stdlib makes no further gaurantees about.

[apatheticonion]

100% this

How nice would it be if there were ReadAsync and WriteAsync traits in the standard library.

Right now, every executor (and the futures crate) implements their own and there are compat crates to bridge the gaps.

[oersted]

It would make sense to have an official default async runtime in the standard library while keeping the door open to use any other runtime, just like we already have for the heap allocator or reference counting garbage collection.

There are issues in particular with core traits for IO or Stream being defined in third-party libraries like tokio, futures or its variants. I've seen many cases where libraries have to reexport such types, but they are pinned to the version they have, so you can end up with multiple versions of basic async types in the same codebase that have the same name and are incompatible.

[ignoreusernames]

As of now I don’t think there’s an alternative. I’m not a Rust expert but the core issue to me is that “async” goes beyond just having a Futures scheduler. Async stuff usually needs network, disk, os interaction, future utilities(spawn) and these are all things the runtime (tokio) provides. It’s pretty hard to be compatible with each other unless the language itself provides those.

[turdinthemouth]

That's not the core issue at all it's lifetimes and allocations.

[ignoreusernames]

Can you elaborate on this please? Do you mean that’s basically impossible for rust std to provide a default runtime that makes “everyone” (embedded on one end and web on the other) happy?

[reallyreason]

I think that's the problem in essence, yes. Different executors built on top of different primitives and having different executions strategies will have mutually incompatible constraints.

To spawn a future on tokio, it has to implement `Send`, because tokio is a work-stealing executor. That isn't the case for monoio or other non-work-stealing async executors, where tasks are pinned to the thread they are spawned on and so do not require `Send` or `Sync`, so you can use Rc/RefCell.

Moreover, the way that async executors schedule execution can be _different_. I have a small executor I made that is based on the runtime model of the JS event loop. It's single-threaded async, with explicit creation of new worker threads. That isn't a model that can "slot in" to a suite of traits that adequately represents the abstraction provided by tokio, because the abstraction of my executor and the way it schedules tasks are fundamentally different.

Any reasonably-usable abstraction for the concept of an async runtime would impose too many constraints on the implementation in the name of ensuring runtime-generic code can execute on any standard runtime. A Future, for better or worse, is a sufficiently minimal abstraction of async executability without assuming anything about how the polling/waking behavior is implemented.

[dwattttt]

> To spawn a future on tokio, it has to implement `Send`, because tokio is a work-stealing executor.

Tokio's default executor is a work-stealing multi-threaded executor, but it also has a local executor and a current-thread executor, which can run !Send futures.

[the__alchemist]

Here are some alternatives for concurrent operations in rust that don't use Async. Which are available depend on the target, e.g. embedded/low-level vs GPOS. I use all of these across my Rust projects:

  - Threads and thread pools
  - CPU SIMD
  - GPU
  - DMA, with memory and/or dedicated hardcore
  - Multiple cores, ICs, or MCUs
  - Hardware interrupts
  - Event loops

Most of you are already aware. I bring this up because I have observed that in the Rust OSS community (especially embedded) people sometimes refer to not using Async as blocking, and are not aware that Async isn't the only wya to manage concurrency. People new to it are learning it this way: "If you're not using Tokio or Embassy (Or some other executor), you are blocking a process."

[tracker1]

That's kind of wild... I'm relatively novice with Rust still, but I was pretty aware that the different executors weren't the only async option... I thought it was pretty cool you could opt into tokio for the bulk of async request work, but if I wanted to use a pool for specific workers, or something else on a more monolithic service/application, I could still launch my own threads for that use case pretty easily.

The hardest parts for me to grok really came down to lifetime memory management, for example a static/global dictionary as a cache, but being able to evict/recover entries from that dictionary for expired data... This is probably the use case that IMO is one of the least well documented, or at least lacking in discoverable tutorials etc.

[bigstrat2003]

The best alternative, by far, is don't require async. Async is much harder to work with than other methods of gaining concurrency, and its benefits (like not needing OS context switches) are irrelevant to most developers. There is no good reason that the majority of Rust libraries force their users into async in all its messiness.