BTW I think some anti-Rust people are more annoying than the worst Rust evangelists - seen some of them calling people not using Rust as "murderers", because "memory leakage can kill at the right time" - but that's due to them being evangelists to right-wing politics.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well you just need that crate :3

https://crates.io/crates/async-compat

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Huh, that pretty cool actually. I need to play around and see if this works with gtk-rs, channels get fairly annoying if you need to use them a lot.

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Keep in mind that it doesn't remove tokio from the stack tho. Don't use this to try to improve compilation time

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I know, I read the description. It just looks like a nicer syntax around setting up a tokio runtime and sending code between runtimes. It'd still be nice to have a non-tokio options so stuff could be single threaded.

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

A lot of the time it's not about options. It's about not messing up the async pattern.

If you have something that either:

requires a lot of CPU time
requires to run permanently, independently to the caller's future polling. Then you can spawn it on a global tokio executor.

If not, just use future polling tricks like the futures::join!() macro or a stream with .buffered(). It won't be slower. The bottle neck is IO. Not the program.

Personally I even try to replace the heavy reqwest library with ureq + blocking, and it works perfectly and compiles faster (you can see that in the api_bindium crate)