Could Rust switch? More importantly, would a completion based model alleviate the problems mentioned?
I should have worded my message more carefully. Completion-based model is not a silver bullet which would magically solve all problems (though I think it would help a bit with the async Drop problem). The problem is that Rust async was rushed without careful deliberation, which causes a number of problems without a clear solution in sight.
As someone who observed the process, this couldn't be further from the truth. Just because one disagrees with the conclusion does not mean that the conclusion was made in haste or in ignorance.
> Without introducing Rust 2? Highly unlikely.
This is incorrect. async/await is a leaf node on the feature tree; it is supported by other language features, but does not support any others. Deprecating or removing it in favor of a replacement would not be traumatic for the language itself (less so for the third-party async/await ecosystem, of course). But this scenario is overly dramatic: the benefits of a completion-based model are not so clear-cut as to warrant such actions.
Believe me, I do understand the motivation behind the decision to push async stabilization in the developed form (at least I think I do). And I do not intend to argue in a bad faith. My point is that in my opinion the Rust team has chosen to get the mid-term boost of Rust popularity at the expense of the long-term Rust health.
Yes, you are correct that in theory it's possible to deprecate the current version of async. But as you note yourself, it's highly unlikely to happen since the current solution is "good enough".
I don't think a conscious decision of that sort was made? My impression is that at the time the road taken was understood to be the correct solution and not a compromise. Is that wrong?
The issues with Pin, problems around noalias, inability to design a proper async Drop solution, not a great compatibility with io-uring and IOCP. In my eyes they are indicators that Rust health in the async field has suffered.
>Completion based is totally better and the only reason it wasn't done was because it would take too long and Rust needed popularity soon
And who now puts words into other's mounts? Please see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26407565
Despite your repeated statements that async has harmed Rust, I don't have any problem whatsoever day to day writing 10s of thousands of lines of async code with regards to what you've brought up.
Are we talking about the same Rust? I remember the debate and consideration over async was enormous and involved. It was practically the polar opposite of “without careful deliberation”.
[1] https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/187312-wg-asy...