On Tue, Oct 14, 2025, at 1:32 AM, Edmond Dantes wrote:
> Hello.
>
>> I tried reading the RFC today, but I ran out of time. It is *59* page printed (I
>> didn't).
> ...
>> I don't think the RFC as-is is close to this at all — but I have mostly skimmed it
>> so far.
>
> **Thank you for the feedback.**
>
> This time there will be a vote. If this RFC is not accepted, I promise
> that I will not create a fifth version. So if anyone has something to
> say, please feel free to speak openly. Please.
Like Derick, I am still highly skeptical about this design. It's vastly improved from the
first version back in the spring, but there are still numerous footguns in the design that will lead
me to voting No on its current iteration. Mainly, we should not be allowing anything but
structured, guaranteed async blocks (as described in the article Derick linked). It is still
perfectly possible to build completely-async systems that way, but it prevents writing code that
would only work in such an all-encompassing system.
I very much want to see it evolve further in that direction before a vote is called and we're
locked into a system with so many foot guns built in.
--Larry Garfield