> Scala/Haskell's IO type
Since you've brought out Haskell's IO and Scala libraries' IOs (Monix, ZIO, Cats Effect), or F#'s Async, I think it's worthwhile to point out how they're different from the async-await approach that's in C#/Kotlin/Rust/etc.
They both require "special" handling -- in C# it's the `async`/`await` syntax, in Scala it's the flatMap function or for-comprehension -- there they are similar. But their meaning is different. IO/Task in Scala doesn't represent a possibly started and under-way computation; it represents a "dead" program, yet to be started, a mere value. And it has all the advantages that mere values have, like refactoring (extract variable, ...) or restarting in case or failure and so on. Pass it into a method, return it from a method, store it in a data structure/collection, create `IO[IO[X]]`, whatever you want, just like you would with `Option[X]` or `List[X]`. In Scala, you have to differentiate between `A => B` and `A => IO[B]`, because `B` and `IO[B]` are different, but both are still values. Your program then ends up being this one big IO/Task value, which is then executed "at the end of the world". These pictures illustrate it quite well:
https://twitter.com/impurepics/status/1182946618280153094
https://twitter.com/impurepics/status/1180064851219144704
On the other hand, async-await has none of the benefits, only downsides. You get functions of two colors, but no benefit in return. It's justifiable in Rust, because Rust aims for zero-cost abstractions. But for Kotlin/C#, it's a sad choice.
The Loom approach for Java is a reasonable one. No async-await shenanigans, no funny FP/Haskell/IO business. You just use threads for concurrency as God intended them and you can have gazillions of them, because they are M:N. And I respect that, even though I'm partial to IO/Task for the reasons outlined above.