91–100 of 199 posts
Eagerly waiting for the 1.37 release!
Great job Rust Team!
I'm nit going to stop using rust, but I find this very disappointing. One thing I strongly disagree with - - this article said other notations would require Rust users having to learn more notation. This still requires learning more notation, just it's easy to not even be aware it exists and think a struct had a member called await instead...
It's not just learning the new notation. It's also that you probably can't override it with your own implementation (useful perhaps in embedded environments).
I'm nit going to stop using rust, but I find this very disappointing. One thing I strongly disagree with - - this article said other notations would require Rust users having to learn more notation. This still requires learning more notation, just it's easy to not even be aware it exists and think a struct had a member called await instead...
Why couldn't they use a macro or a function? EDIT: nvm. it says in TFA not the linked writeup
A bit off-topic: Is there any theoretical reason you need async / await syntax at all? (It's certainly desirable for performance and compatibility to avoid making all subroutines into coroutines, so I understand why most languages have done this.) And restricting it to the case where coroutines have a single return... Subroutines are naturally coroutines that don't yield. And it seems like the question of whether it'…
The fact that discussions over syntax generate pages and pages of furious bickering, while discussions over semantics (which is what actually matters) get a shrug, is the ultimate example of bikeshedding in PL design. Honestly, syntax just doesn't matter . Yes, particular poor choices can impede usability, but that's not applicable here, and ultimately after two minutes or so of learning the new syntax there's no dif…
Indeed. I'm reminded of http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html . I think it's just easy to have an opinion on syntax. I think this also highlights the pitfalls of being community-centric. If Rust were run more like chromium or something, this sort of thing just ceases to be an issue. Major kudos to the Rust team for managing it really well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm interested to know how much of this was a religious battle and how much of it results in meaningful complications for user code down the line. Due to the connotations of "religious battle", it's hard to get a good answer here. Nobody wants to be painted in this light. > Is this syntax for native coroutines? No. > Can it be combined with existing user and stdlib syntax? Yes. > What pathways for syntax developmen…
> Due to the connotations of "religious battle", it's hard to get a good answer here. Nobody wants to be painted in this light. Haven't we all found ourselves lined up as one of a pair of camps over some heated dispute over a bit of minutiae? The whole time you know it's a bit silly, but not entirely and you feel compelled to continue to argue. Using a term like "religious battles" with tongue firmly in cheek is reco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, on C#, I sometimes have to do: var value = (await (await startRequest()).GetBody()).Root; While the Rust syntax would make this a little more clear, I do not think it is a dealbreaker.
Please don't do that. I had to look several times to rewrite it as var temp1 = await StartRequest(); var temp2 = await temp1.GetBody(); var value = temp2.Root; which is instantly grokked.
- On the one hand, I agree that "interesting" operations really should be on their own lines. I think I'm going to strongly prefer to keep it to one `await` per line for the foreseeable future.
- On the other hand, I know that many programmers will cram a lot of operations into one line if they can, and when that inevitably happens it would be nice for it to be readable.
- And maybe in the long run, it's possible that a big, mature async ecosystem might make a lot of these operations so commonplace that they aren't "interesting" anymore. Maybe in that world we'll be glad to have a syntax that makes it easy to chain things together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of the above. It's compiler magic. It's a keyword that says 'await on this awaitable object' (currently only a Future can be await-ed). You can read the OP which contains links to more blog posts on the reasoning. I think this is a bad decision precisely because of the questions you're asking. At least making it a 'magic method' (i.e., Future::await(...) or future.await()) with no implementation would have been…
I've been planning to try out Rust for a side project, and this decision is so principle-of-most-surprise that it's got me reconsidering, wondering what other unpleasant weirdness lurks in the language. Looking down their other options in one of the linked articles, they seem to reject a couple fine ones outright and then went with one I'd have rejected outright as being too hostile to anyone who's not quite familiar…
But the rest of the language is really good so don't let this scare you off. Most of rust feels very well thought out and reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of the above. It's compiler magic. It's a keyword that says 'await on this awaitable object' (currently only a Future can be await-ed). You can read the OP which contains links to more blog posts on the reasoning. I think this is a bad decision precisely because of the questions you're asking. At least making it a 'magic method' (i.e., Future::await(...) or future.await()) with no implementation would have been…
I've been planning to try out Rust for a side project, and this decision is so principle-of-most-surprise that it's got me reconsidering, wondering what other unpleasant weirdness lurks in the language. Looking down their other options in one of the linked articles, they seem to reject a couple fine ones outright and then went with one I'd have rejected outright as being too hostile to anyone who's not quite familiar…
The reason this process took so long, is that most people feel exactly like you do, except that they don't agree about which proposal they hate.