The key thing about 2023-era asynchronous versus 1995-era cooperative multitasking is code readability and conciseness.
Under the hood, I'm expressing the same thing, but Windows 3.1 code was not fun to write. Python / JavaScript, once you wrap your head around it, is. The new semantics are very readable, and rapidly improving too. The old ones were impossible to make readable.
You could argue that it's just syntactic sugar, but it's bloody important syntactic sugar.
I never left 1991 and I haven't seen anything that has made me consider leaving ConcurrentML except for the actor model, but that is so old the documentation is written on parchment.
> You could argue that it's just syntactic sugar, but it's bloody important syntactic sugar.
Yes, of course you could, since everything beyond, uh, paper tape, next-state table, and current pen-position (or whatever other pieces there are in a theoretical Turing machine) is basically syntactic sugar. Or, IOW, all programming languages higher than assembly are nothing but syntactic sugar. I like syntactic sugar.
(But OTOH, I'm a diabetic. Gotta watch out for that sugar.)
Exactly. The way I think about it, the "async" keyword transforms function code so that local variables are no longer bound to the stack, making it possible to pause function execution (using "await") and resume it at an arbitrary time. Performing that transformation manually is a fair amount of work and it's prone to errors, but that's what we did when we wrote cooperatively multitasked code.
Sure, that's a good way to look at it. Another way to look at it: because the process of transforming code for cooperative multitasking is now much cleaner and simpler, it's fine to use new words to describe what to do and how to do it.
cooperative multitasking, as i use the term, keeps you from having to transform your code. it maintains a separate stack per task, just like preemptive multitasking. so async/await isn't cooperative multitasking, though it can achieve similar goals
possibly you are using the terms in subtly different ways so it appears that we disagree when we do not
that definition is different from the definition i'm using; it covers both what i'm calling 'cooperative multitasking' and things like async/await, the npm event handler model, and python/clu iterators
> In programming, a task is simply an independent execution path. On a computer, the system software can handle multiple tasks, which may be applications or even smaller units of execution. For example, the system may execute multiple applications, and each application may have independently executing tasks within it. Each such task has its own stack and register set.
> Multitasking may be either cooperative or preemptive. Cooperative multitasking requires that each task voluntarily give up control so that other tasks can execute. (...)
> The Mac OS 8 operating system implements cooperative multitasking between applications. The Process Manager can keep track of the actions of several applications. However, each application must voluntarily yield its processor time in order for another application to gain it. An application does so by calling WaitNextEvent, which cedes control of the processor until an event occurs that requires the application’s attention.
that is, this requirement that each task have its own stack is not just something i made up; it's been part of common usage for decades, at least in some communities. the particular relevant distinction here is that, because each task has its own stack (or equivalent in something like scheme), multitasking doesn't require restructuring your code, because calling a normal function can yield the cpu. in the specific case of macos this was necessary so that switcher/multifinder/process-manager could multitask mac apps written for previous versions of macos that didn't have multitasking
thanks! but here we were discussing specifically the distinction between the approaches to concurrency that require you to explicitly structure your code around yield points, like async/await, and the kinds that don't, like preemptive multitasking and what i'm calling cooperative multitasking. this is unnecessarily difficult to discuss coherently if you insist on applying the term 'cooperative multitasking' indiscriminately to both, which i've shown above is in violation of established usage, and refusing to suggest an alternative term
i'll see if i can flesh out the wikipedia article a bit
Where did I mix preemptive and cooperative multitasking?
And why do you think that in the case of an explicit event loop you don't have to yield? You do have to, and have to sort out some way to continue on your own. Which makes the new 'syntactic sugar' approaches much easier of course. Doesn't mean the principle isn't the same and they don't deserve the same name.
if the implied contrast is with cooperative multitasking, it's exactly the opposite: they're there to expose the event loop in a way you can't ignore. if the implied contrast is with setTimeout(() => { ... }, 0) then yes, pretty much, although the difference is fairly small—implicit variable capture by the closure does most of the same hiding that await does
Not asking about old JavaScript vs new JavaScript. Asking about explicit event loop vs hidden event loop with fancy names like timeout, async, await...
do you mean the kind of explicit loop where you write
for (;;) {
int r = GetMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0);
if (!r) break;
if (r == -1) croak();
TranslateMessage(&msg);
DispatchMessage(&msg);
}
or, in yeso,
for (;;) {
yw_wait(w, 0);
for (yw_event *ev; (ev = yw_get_event(w));) handle_event(ev);
redraw(w);
}
async/await doesn't always hide the event loop in that sense; python asyncio, for example, has a lot of ways to invoke the event loop or parts of it explicitly, which is often necessary for integration with software not written with asyncio in mind. i used to maintain an asyncio cubesat csp protocol stack where we had to do this
to some extent, though, this vitiates the concurrency guarantees you can otherwise get out of async/await. software maintainability comes from knowing that certain things are impossible, and pure async/await can make concurrency guarantees which disappear when a non-async function can invoke the event loop in this way. so i would argue that it goes further than just hiding the event loop. it's like saying that garbage collection is about hiding memory addresses: sort of true, but false in an important sense
What worries me is we may have a whole generation who doesn't know about the code you posted above and thinks it's magic or worse, real multiprocessing.
