One and a half colors

Posted Dec 2, 2025 22:23 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: One and a half colors by excors
Parent article: Zig's new plan for asynchronous programs

That's much better solution that what Rust did. Of course Zig has the benefits of hindsight.

In practice there are more than two colors — except in Rust it's not obvious from the source and almost unmanageable in practice.

That's because you couldn't simply pass any random async function into any random executor… the functions that do actual work have to match the executor or else the whole things falls apart — and these functions are invisible in Rust's async fn signature.

In Zig one may simply have more than two implementations of the interface.

People are talking about “two colors” because in practice that's something that actually works, but try to mix two executors in one program in Rust… and the whole thing falls apart, you couldn't do that. It's not “2 colors” problem, but “2+ colors problem”.

to post comments

One and a half colors

Posted Dec 3, 2025 9:17 UTC (Wed) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link] (2 responses)

> That's much better solution that what Rust did. Of course Zig has the benefits of hindsight.

I would like to understand how IO functions are compiled. If they are stackful coroutines, Zig's solution is very clever but that's a very different design space than the stackless coroutines you have in Rust or, for that matter, in Zig's previous attempt at asynchronous I/O. Stackless coroutines need compiler support but are more efficient (a couple years back I had a (IMO) really nice design for C stackless coroutines, but no time to implement it...).

Or does the compiler effectively treat the IO argument as a request to turn the function into a state machine and pass it to the threaded or evented run-time?

One and a half colors

Posted Dec 3, 2025 10:17 UTC (Wed) by spiffyk (subscriber, #173891) [Link]

As I understand it, the way the function will ultimately be compiled is entirely up to the chosen implementation of the Io interface. May be stackful, may be stackless – the point is that to the function taking the Io parameter, this is just a transparent implementation detail.

What is important to note is that the language provides no special treatment to the Io parameter, it is entirely an API convention to pass it. Io is an extension of the standard library, which in and of itself does not change how the language works. The only point at which the compiler itself will need to provide special functionality is when an implementation of the Io interface uses the (as of yet not finalized, afaik) constructs for stackless coroutines. But those are planned to be a separate feature of the language, and, from the perspective of the Io, will only be used by specific Io implementations.

One and a half colors

Posted Dec 3, 2025 12:40 UTC (Wed) by lukasl (guest, #180745) [Link]

There is no compiler support for this. It's either threads or stackful coroutines, depending on the implementation. The current dev versions of Zig only support threaded version of this. There are work-in-progress implementations of event loops in the zig std. I also created one alternative stackful coroutine runtime, outside of the zig std, that also implements the interface.

One and a half colors

Posted Dec 3, 2025 9:58 UTC (Wed) by muase (subscriber, #178466) [Link] (2 responses)

> That's because you couldn't simply pass any random async function into any random executor… the functions that do actual work have to match the executor or else the whole things falls apart — and these functions are invisible in Rust's async fn signature.

Could you elaborate what you mean with that? Because I have heavily used async within the embedded world, and I struggle to understand your point.

Async has two relevant API components: futures and wakers. As long as I implement a correct future, and use the provided opaque waker to wake the executor, I don’t see how my implementation has to match the executor?

And in my experience that works pretty well IRL; I have quite a few projects where I switched from my own executor to embassy, and two projects where I did vice versa, and I’ve never encountered any problems so far…

One and a half colors

Posted Dec 3, 2025 11:22 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

> Async has two relevant API components: futures and wakers.

Nope. It has three components, or, more precisely, two and half: futures+wakers and executors. These have to match or the whole thing goes down in flames.

> As long as I implement a correct future, and use the provided opaque waker to wake the executor, I don’t see how my implementation has to match the executor?

Because your waker has to match the executor. And said waker, as you have said, is opaque and is not present in the function signature so compiler couldn't verify that they match.

> I have quite a few projects where I switched from my own executor to embassy, and two projects where I did vice versa, and I’ve never encountered any problems so far…

And how many of these have both of these executors running, simultaneously? Note that it's not even a purely theoretical interest. There are tokio and tokio_uring — and they are incompatible (certain things in tokio make it impossible to use in one project). You may want, e.g., use tokio for network-related tasks and tokio_uring for disk access (where tokio is lacking). But if you try to do that you would quickly find out that mixing different futures (and thus different wakers) can easily lead to trouble.

One and a half colors

Posted Dec 4, 2025 21:40 UTC (Thu) by ofranja (subscriber, #11084) [Link]

> And how many of these have both of these executors running, simultaneously?

You can have multiple runtimes side-by-side in Rust, unless there is a specific limitation on the implementation of your runtime that prevents it. Nevertheless, it would be an implementation issue and not a language issue.

If you want an example, send this request to the LLM of your preference:

"Please write a simple example of a Rust program using async-std and tokio simultaneously in the same program."

> But if you try to do that you would quickly find out that mixing different futures (and thus different wakers) can easily lead to trouble.

You might not be able to use certain functions from a runtime's library in another runtime if they are implemented by the runtime itself - ie: what you call is a function that signals an action to the runtime and the function itself does not "execute" anything, and just waits for the action to complete.

In any case, this is easily solvable by communicating between different runtime contexts using channels and matching the library function calls to the particular runtime.

One and a half colors

Posted Dec 3, 2025 13:56 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link] (1 responses)

> People are talking about “two colors” because in practice that's something that actually works

Two colors because one has "async" and one has not, or one requires a somewhat-special "Io" and one does not.

Variants (shades of a color, if you'd like) are of course a related problem. Rust isn't the only language that has more than one mostly-incompatible async variant. Python has two (asyncio and trio (*)), and a third (anyio) which provides an API that runs on top of both of them. Also you can run trio on top of asyncio (in guest mode) and vice versa (trio-asyncio). All in all that makes the situation annoying but somewhat manageable.

(*) OK so there's also curio and Twisted and whatnot. Details.

One and a half colors

Posted Dec 3, 2025 15:09 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

> Two colors because one has "async" and one has not, or one requires a somewhat-special "Io" and one does not.

You can easily predict that “sync” is just a special executor that does everything in place. That's trivial transformation and easily done if you may support more than one executor.

> All in all that makes the situation annoying but somewhat manageable.

Yes, but it's kludges on top of kludges. If you can, somehow, adopt the model that may have more than one executor then all the difference fall by wayside automatically because “sync” becomes just an async with trivial executor. But if you don't do that the every time you add new executor you make the mess worse: two executors (certain flavor of async and “sync”) are the typical norm today, three are a mess, try to converge dozen of executors in one app and the whole thing would collapse under its weight.

To untangle that mess we need to, somehow, parametrise our async functions… and Zig does precise that.