cve-rs VS runtimelab

I like the license:

https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs/blob/main/LICENSE

> Consider Rust.

What about advertising actual memory safe languages instead. https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

Funny thing is that you can get undefined behavior and segfaults using only "safe rust", and the rust compiler has subtle bugs that allow you to disable important checks (like type checking), which can leave your code completely broken.

But for some crazy propaganda, rust devs believes that any rust code is safe and sound no matter what.

https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs/issues/49

And how would you conclude that "fast"?

You can have UB in "safe rust".

https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

You can even disable to Type check, trait check and borrow check in "safe rust"

And all of this is unsound.

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/i-finally-found-the-cheat-code...

> Even validators have bugs

Yep! For example, https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs is an example of a bug in the Rust compiler, which allows something that it shouldn't. It's on its way to being fixed.

> or miss things no?

This is the trickier part! Yes, even proofs have axioms, that is, things that are accepted without proof, that the rest of the proof is built on top of. If an axiom is incorrect, so is the proof, even though we've proven it.

I love Rust, but you can play exactly the same game with Rust: https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

When there is industry consensus, there is often much humour that precedes it, including https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

It actually looks like they have decided not to add virtual threads to .Net:

https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/issues/2398

I am holding out hope for NativeAOT-LLVM https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/tree/feature/NativeAOT-...

For everyone reading this blog post I caution that the conclusions there are at best creative interpretations of the notes written down here: https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...

It is quite literally impossible to draw conclusions on e.g. memory consumption until the work on this, which is underway, makes it into mainline runtime. It's important to understand that the experiment was first and foremost a research to look into modernizing async implementation, and was a massive success. Now once that is proven, the tuned and polished implementation will be made.

Once it is done and makes into a release (it could even be as early as .NET 10), then further review will be possible.

This FAQ is a bit outdated in places, and is not something most users should worry about in practice.

JVM Green Threads here serve predominantly back-end scenarios, where most of the items on the list are not of concern. This list also exists to address bad habits that carried over from before the tasks were introduced, many years ago.

In general, the perceived want of green threads is in part caused by misunderstanding of that one bad article about function coloring. And that one bad article about function coloring also does not talk about the way you do async in C#.

Async/await in C# is just a better model with explicit understanding where a method returns an operation that promises to complete in the future or not, and composting tasks for easy (massive) concurrency is significantly more idiomatic than doing so with green threads or completable futures that existed in Java before these.

Also one change to look for is "Runtime Handled Tasks" project in .NET that will replace Roslyn-generated state machine code with runtime-provided suspension mechanism which will only ever suspend at true suspension points where task's execution actually yields asynchronously. So far numbers show at least 5x decrease in overhead, which is massive and will bring performance of computation heavy async paths in line with sync ones: https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...

Async/await is not a tight corner as showcased by a multitude of languages adopting the pattern: Rust, Python, JavaScript and Swift.

In fact, it is a clean abstraction where future progress is possible while retaining the convenience of its concurrency syntax and task composition.

Green threads experiment proved net negative in terms of benefit but its the follow-up work on modernizing the implementation detail was very successful: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620 / https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...

It also seems that common practices in Java indicate that properties are not a mistake as showcased by popularity of Lombok and dozens of other libraries to generate builders and property-like methods (or, worse, Java developers having to write them by hand).

There was a "green thread" experiment for dotnet a while ago, here is the conclusion: https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/issues/2398

Experiment result write-up: https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/e69dda51c7d796b812...

TLDR: The green threads experiment was a failure as it found (expected and obvious) issues that the Java applications are now getting to enjoy, joining their Go colleagues, while also requiring breaking changes. It, however, gave inspiration to subsequent re-examination of current async/await implementation and whether it can be improved by moving state machine generation and execution away from IL completely to runtime. It was a massive success as evidenced by preliminary overhead estimations in the results.

Yeah, it kind of is. There are quite a few of experiments that are conducted to see if they show promise in the prototype form and then are taken further for proper integration if they do.

Unfortunately, object stack allocation was not one of them even though DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocation configuration knob exists today, enabling it makes zero impact as it almost never kicks in. By the end of the experiment[0], it was concluded that before investing effort in this kind of feature becomes profitable given how a lot of C# code is written, there are many other lower hanging fruits.

To contrast this, in continuation to green threads experiment, a runtime handled tasks experiment[1] which moves async state machine handling from IL emitted by Roslyn to special-cased methods and then handling purely in runtime code has been a massive success and is now being worked on to be integrated in one of the future version of .NET (hopefully 10?)

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...

Unlike these folks from dotnet, which tested directly on ASP for real workload

 https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/issues/2398?darkschemeovr=1