tokio::spawn_blocking[1], see it's not that hard. But sure to use another language you must learn it, an it requires a bit if effort…
[1] assuming you want to use tokio like post people do, but other executors should have the same kind of functions to do that as well if need be.
You could argue that this mismatch exists even with rust itself, where you have Drop, which is sync, and you might have to do something in your drop that requires async, like closing a network connection.
You have to pass in some runtime handle that you can use to spawn a task to do what you have to do. This is definitely not simple and beginner friendly. Or even worse - say goodbye to RAII and tell people that they have to explicitly call an async shutdown fn.
Since when has it become acceptable in rust to have fns that just panic depending on the state of some thread local? That is one thing I really dislike about tokio.
The thread local runtime is convenience over correctness, which is antithetical to what rust usually favours.
tokio::spawn_blocking doesn't exist in my codebase because I'm not using tokio, nor should I have to in order to use library code from a crate.
This is the problem with async in a nutshell; it's viral, and it brings with it a lot of lifestyle assumptions. Assumptions that I think people who are used to working in the web framework world are maybe comfortable with, but which should not have been allowed to spread to the crates ecosystem broadly.
async is fine as an implementation option for your service or binary; but its propagation into library code means now people using that library are tied into requiring a framework to host it with. And this is frankly just bad hygiene, and in a way seems contrary to Rust philosophy generally.
Most crate writers are polite enough to offer async and non-async bundling of their code. But on more than one occasion recently I've run into dependencies that did not do this, or did not do this thoroughly (offering sync versions with less features, for example).
If you're trying to use a library that uses Futures, then you need an executor to poll that futures to completion. But then it's not the same situation as the one I'm responding to (where it was about using blocking code in an async context).
If you have blocking code and need a way to poll third-party futures to completion then it's tokio::block_on or equivalent that you need.
> This is the problem with async in a nutshell; it's viral
That's the biggest misunderstanding about async/await: it's not async that's viral, it's IO. If your library does IO, then you do IO and have to deal with the fact. And you have to actively deal with it no matter what, because IO is slow and you definitely do not want your UI thread be frozen[1] because something under the hood is doing IO. The only difference is that async makes it explicit in the typesystem, where blocking does not and you need to guess where to spawn new threads.
[1] or your thread that's listening on incomming sockets.