I don't get the "Maybe Rust isn’t a good tool for massively concurrent, userspace software" conclusion.
Rust is all about lifetimes and the borrow checker. Async code (a la C#) will introduce overhead to reason about lifetime and it might not be as "fun" as it is with other languages that makes use of GCs and bigger runtimes.
The CSP vs Async/Await discussion is valid, but like in the majority of the cases, the drawbacks and benefits are not language relevant.
In CSP, the concurrent snippets behave just like linear/sequencial code as channels abstracts await a lot of the ugly bits. Sequential code tends to be easier to reason and this might be very important for Rust considering it design.
A good tool for massively concurrent software will as expected depend on the aspects you're evaluating:
- Performance: the text does not show benchmarks evaluating Rust as a slow language.
- Code/Feature throughput: the overall conclusion from the text if that Async Rust is a complex tool and expose the programmers in many ways to shoot themselves in the foot.
Assuming the "Maybe Rust..." is only talking about Async Rust, the existence of big Async Rust projects is a good counter argument. We also have the whole rest of the Rust language to code massively concurrent, userspace software.
Massively concurrent, userspace software tends to be complex and big to the point that design decisions generally impact way more the language decision.
Rust is a modern language with interesting features to prevent programmers from writing unsafe programs and this is a good head start to many when making those kind of programs, more than whether you want to use Async code or not.
Rust is all about lifetimes and the borrow checker. Async code (a la C#) will introduce overhead to reason about lifetime and it might not be as "fun" as it is with other languages that makes use of GCs and bigger runtimes.
The CSP vs Async/Await discussion is valid, but like in the majority of the cases, the drawbacks and benefits are not language relevant.
In CSP, the concurrent snippets behave just like linear/sequencial code as channels abstracts await a lot of the ugly bits. Sequential code tends to be easier to reason and this might be very important for Rust considering it design.
A good tool for massively concurrent software will as expected depend on the aspects you're evaluating: - Performance: the text does not show benchmarks evaluating Rust as a slow language. - Code/Feature throughput: the overall conclusion from the text if that Async Rust is a complex tool and expose the programmers in many ways to shoot themselves in the foot.
Assuming the "Maybe Rust..." is only talking about Async Rust, the existence of big Async Rust projects is a good counter argument. We also have the whole rest of the Rust language to code massively concurrent, userspace software.
Massively concurrent, userspace software tends to be complex and big to the point that design decisions generally impact way more the language decision.
Rust is a modern language with interesting features to prevent programmers from writing unsafe programs and this is a good head start to many when making those kind of programs, more than whether you want to use Async code or not.