> That single passing reference to him as King of Assyria, was everything that was known of him for 2500 years, until the ruins of Dur-Sharrukin, his capital (destroyed during the mentioned wars) were excavated in the 19th century.
I only have a layman's knowledge of this part of history, but this strikes me as unlikely. Surely something was known of him for some time in other sources, probably hundreds of years at least, before those source were also lost? The loss of knowledge is also second-order: we have lost knowledge of what was known to our predecessors.
Before writing a completely asinine comment like this, you might consider that I, having been paid real American dollars to design this language, might know more than you about the relationship between GATs and HKTs and the design of Rust as a whole. Your comment evinces a total ignorance of the type theoretical issues that actually informed our decision on this issue.
You're begging the question when you say that GATs are "not comprehensible for a mortal like myself." My entire point is that they were designed not to be incomprehensible.
What is "not comprehensible for a mortal" in this situation is why adding a generic to an associated type is a long-anticipated feature that took years of development to support. This is related to the "incomprehensible" discussion that occurs around this feature, talking about type functions and higher kindedness and all of these mathematical formalisms. But this discussion is just happening among practitioners and enthusiasts schooled in a certain jargon and area of arcane knowledge. It doesn't mean you need to understand any of this to just use the feature.
It's like people saying the internet is "not comprehensible for a mortal like myself" because most people do not have the background to properly understand IP/TCP/HTTP and how things like this undergirdle the technology that they use. And yet they use the internet just fine. If the design has succeeded, you should not need to even hear words like "higher kindedness" before you can make your associated type generic.
Possibly the system design is imperfect and the abstractions leaks and you as a user have to learn more than one would hope in order to successfully use the tool to accomplish your goals. Rust doesn't have a perfect track record here.
I hope you don't. To establish my credentials for this comment - GATs were my idea.
The entire point of GATs was to carve out a design space that solved peoples' problems without being so high-minded as monads and HKT and so on. Unfortunately, a lot of people who like monads like to talk about GATs in the same way. But its really as simple as this: when you add an associated type to a trait, you can make that type generic, the same way you can make a type alias generic when its not in a trait. The whole point of specifying GATs and not a more general "HKT" is that it's an obvious extension of the existing language.
There are lots of useful traits that you can't define if you can't make an associated type generic, so people are excited to have this feature.
It turned out that implementing this in rustc took a very long time, because refactoring the typechecker of rustc to support this was challenging. But that doesn't mean the feature itself is complicated or difficult to use. The whole point of GATs is that it shouldn't really feel like a feature once it's done: naturally, if you are writing a trait with a method that returns `Self::Foo`, but you need it to be `Self::Foo<T>` or `Self::Foo<'a>`, you can just do that, rather than the compiler telling you that it's not supported.
That's not why I stopped working on Rust. Given that Amazon, Google, Microsoft and others all employ people to work on Rust, lack of money is certainly not the problem. There has never been more money in Rust development.
> Async support is incredibly half-baked. It was released as an MVP, but that MVP has not improved notably in almost three years.
As the primary mover of the MVP (who stopped working on Rust shortly after it was launched), I'm really sad to see this. I certainly didn't imagine that 3 years later, none of the next steps past the MVP would have even made it into nightly. I don't want to speculate as to why this is.
I also recommend avoiding async if you don't need. Unfortunately for people who don't need it but do want to do a bit of networking, a huge part of the energy behind Rust is in cloud data plane applications, which do need it.
Java's NPE is not at all the same thing as the undefined behavior of dereferencing a null pointer in C (or Zig in release mode). In fact its the same exact thing as calling unwrap. Your Java server's NPE is not bringing down the entire server because the exception is caught somewhere. The same can be done in Rust (and is, by many frameworks), where panics are caught before they crash the entire application.
This is the opposite of reality: in Rust, the safe syntax `?` exists and there is no short syntax for the panicking form (`.unwrap()`). Users are not incentivized to unwrap in Rust, users are as disincitivized as possible to unwrap.
The uses of unwrap in the projects the GP cited are overwhelmingly in tests and examples, which are not expected to handle errors in the same way as application code. The remainder are mainly lock poisoning unwrapping, which is a completely endorsed idiom.
It is not at all like Rust; it is a garbage collection system based on reference counting, pretty similar to Swift. This is obscured by the documentation for each using similar terminology (like "move semantics" and "ownership") to refer to systems with different characteristics.
It doesn't really matter to me what you, an internet stranger, are "excited to consider as something you want to work with." Instead, what you should consider is how incredibly boorish it is to post that "async is broken by design" in reply to the person who designed async.
As others have written, there's basically no connection between Rust's six week release cycle & the rate of actual change to Rust. If Rust switched to a 12 week release cycle, all that would change is that it would take twice as long for features to reach users on stable once they were decided to be released. Feature development is neither release driven nor release constrained.
However, the ground truth is that the design of significant new language features basically stopped in 2018. The work now is shepherding through the language extensions the project already committed to in the first few years after 1.0. For example, const generics, which will have a stable MVP in the next release, was first begun in 2017. Generic associated types, which are still not near stable, in 2016.
And my own view, these remaining features are a nearly "feature complete" Rust. Future extensions will be either more niche (a lot of attention in the last few years has been aimed at features to make writing unsafe code less error prone, which wouldn't visibly impact users who write only safe code) or less substantial (such as a syntactic sugar that would improve a lot of users lives, but not deeply change how they write code). And that's actually very good.
> But then, in a typical use of select, you don't actually want to cancel the I/O operations represented by the other futures. Rather, you're running select in a loop in order to handle each completed operation as it comes.
You often do want to cancel them in some branches of the code that handles the result (for example, if they error). It indeed may be prohibitively expensive to wait until cancellation is complete - because io-uring cancellation requires a full round trip through the interface, the IORING_OP_ASYNC_CANCEL op is just a hint to the kernel to cancel any blocking work, you still have to wait to get a completion back before you know the kernel will not touch the buffer passed in.
And this doesn't even get into the much better buffer management strategies io-uring has baked into it, like registered buffers and buffer pre-allocation. I'm really skeptical of making those work with AsyncRead (now you need to define buffer types that deref to slices that are tracking these things independent of the IO object), but since AsyncBufRead lets the IO object own the buffer, it is trivial.
Moving the ecosystem that cares about io-uring to AsyncBufRead (a trait that already exists) and letting the low level IO code handle the buffer is a strictly better solution than requiring futures to run until they're fully, truly cancalled. Protocol libraries should already expose the ability to parse the protocol from an arbitrary stream of buffers, instead of directly owning an IO handle. I'm sure some libraries don't, but that's a mistake that this will course correct.
Of course I was more gracious to pornel - that remark was uncharacteristically flippant from a contributor who is normally thoughtful and constructive. pornel is not in the habit of posting that my work is fatally flawed because I did not pursue some totally unviable vaporware proposal.
That is not a correct reading of the situation. async/await was not rushed, and does not have flaws that could have been solved with more time. async/await will continue to improve in a backward compatible way, as it already has since it was released in 2019.
The completion based futures that Alex started with were also based on epoll. The performance issues it presented had nothing to do any sort of impedence mismatch between a completion based future and epoll, because there is no impedence issue. You are confused.
Having investigated this myself, I would be very surprised to discover that it is.
The only viable solution to make AsyncRead zero cost for io-uring would be to have required futures to be polled to completion before they are dropped. So you can give up on select and most necessary concurrency primitives. You really want to be able to stop running futures you don't need, after all.
If you want the kernel to own the buffer, you should just let the kernel own the buffer. Therefore, AsyncBufRead. This will require the ecosystem to shift where the buffer is owned, of course, and that's a cost of moving to io-uring. Tough, but those are the cards we were dealt.
Our async IO model was based on the Linux industry standard (then and now) epoll, but that is not at all what drove the switch to a polling based model, and the polling based model presents no issues whatsoever with io-uring. You do not know what you are talking about.
This post is completely and totally wrong. At least you got to ruin my day, I hope that's a consolation prize for you.
There is NO meaningful connection between the completion vs polling futures model and the epoll vs io-uring IO models. comex's comments regarding this fact are mostly accurate. The polling model that Rust chose is the only approach that has been able to achieve single allocation state machines in Rust. It was 100% the right choice.
After designing async/await, I went on to investigate io-uring and how it would be integrated into Rust's system. I have a whole blog series about it on my website: https://without.boats/tags/io-uring/. I assure you, the problems it present are not related to Rust's polling model AT ALL. They arise from the limits of Rust's borrow system to describe dynamic loans across the syscall boundary (i.e. that it cannot describe this). A completion model would not have made it possible to pass a lifetime-bound reference into the kernel and guarantee no aliasing. But all of them have fine solutions building on work that already exists.
Pin is not a hack any more than Box is. It is the only way to fit the desired ownership expression into the language that already exists, squaring these requirements with other desireable primitives we had already committed to shared ownership pointers, mem::swap, etc. It is simply FUD - frankly, a lie - to say that it will block "noalias," following that link shows Niko and Ralf having a fruitful discussion about how to incorporate self-referential types into our aliasing model. We were aware of this wrinkle before we stabilized Pin, I had conversations with Ralf about it, its just that now that we want to support self-referential types in some cases, we need to do more work to incorporate it into our memory model. None of this is unusual.
And none of this was rushed. Ignoring the long prehistory, a period of 3 and a half years stands between the development of futures 0.1 and the async/await release. The feature went through a grueling public design process that burned out everyone involved, including me. It's not finished yet, but we have an MVP that, contrary to this blog post, does work just fine, in production, at a great many companies you care about. Moreover, getting a usable async/await MVP was absolutely essential to getting Rust the escape velocity to survive the ejection from Mozilla - every other funder of the Rust Foundation finds async/await core to their adoption of Rust, as does every company that is now employing teams to work on Rust.
Async/await was, both technically and strategically, as well executed as possible under the circumstances of Rust when I took on the project in December 2017. I have no regrets about how it turned out.
Everyone who reads Hacker News should understand that the content your consuming is usually from one of these kinds of people: a) dilettantes, who don't have a deep understanding of the technology; b) cranks, who have some axe to grind regarding the technology; c) evangelists, who are here to promote some other technology. The people who actually drive the technologies that shape our industry don't usually have the time and energy to post on these kinds of things, unless they get so angry about how their work is being discussed, as I am here.
I only have a layman's knowledge of this part of history, but this strikes me as unlikely. Surely something was known of him for some time in other sources, probably hundreds of years at least, before those source were also lost? The loss of knowledge is also second-order: we have lost knowledge of what was known to our predecessors.