The new experimental languages with effect types might be able to give us the best of both as they actually expose what you are talking about as an abstraction at the type level. We will see.
Currently, none of those trait implementations can be async because that would change the function signature.
So the only option you have in a trait implementation that needs to call a library that happens to use async apis internallt, is to "block_on" the async. Unfortunately iirc blocking on an async like that is executor specific and your impl must pick a concrete async executor which may be different from the one used elsewhere in the program.
The reason why we don't want to be polymorphic between fallible and “infallible” functions is that we put a clear social hierarchy between “properly handle error cases” and “panicking”. Using panics instead of `Result` make error handling much less cumbersome in Rust too, but we've clearly internalized that this isn't something you should do for real. Symmetrically, I'd argue that there's no much point to have both async and sync interfaces, if the user just want the quick and dirty approach, `spawn_blocking` is barely more typing effort than `unwrap`. The broad developer community (most of which having programmed well before Futures/Promises went mainstream) disagrees with me on that point, but that's a cultural thing.
Oh, and Result/Options aren't the sole “stack coloring” thing in Rust either: if you have an “owned” variable down the stack, then you need to either change your entire call stack to take the variable “by ownership” instead of “by reference”, or you can `Clone` it.
And you known what's even worse than this: `&mut`, because then you have no quick-and-dirty fallback (cloning and mutably borrowing the clone variable means you're now dealing with a reference that has a much shorter lifetime than the original one and it only works if your reference doesn't leave the current scope).
As a personal anecdote of someone that's been doing Rust full time for 6 years now, I've encountered the `Option`/`Result `/“owned”/`&mut` function coloring problem many times, and exactly zero times the “async/blocking” function coloring problem. Yet for some reason people are obsessed by an old rant about JavaScript's callback hell ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is not true of async/blocking — there can be semantic differences between two, otherwise equivalent implementations, and it is a recursive problem as I mentioned — how should an async-block-async call chain work exactly? Java can decide it at runtime, while rust with its tradeoffs meaningfully can’t - but it is a net negative tradeoff in its case.
But this is a discussion about Rust! And my entire point is that async/await is entirely consistent with Rust's overall design.
> But exceptions (especially checked exceptions like in java) don’t have that problem, and are exact analogues to Result types.
Unchecked exceptions don't have this problem (but checked exceptions do), and that's exactly my point. Async/await vs green-thread is exactly the same trade-off than Result vs exceptions: one is “simpler to use”, the other is “simpler to read”. After years of programming, I personally came to the conclusion that we spend more time reading code than writing it (and it's going to be even more true in the near future with LLMs) so I lean on the Result/await side of things, but I don't have fundamental objections against green thread and exceptions.
I do have a fundamental objection against the idea that “async” is somewhat special.
> This is not true of async/blocking — there can be semantic differences between two, otherwise equivalent implementations
Result vs exceptions have also a significant semantic difference: unwinding, and especially the fact that you can trigger unwinding at any point. This is a significant issue when you're dealing with pointers.
> how should an async-block-async call chain work exactly?
I don't really understand this question. An async function is just a regular function that returns a Future, and yes since there's no marker for blocking function you can definitely call one inside an async context, even though it's often a very bad idea from a perf PoV (well it depends, locks are mostly fine, but you need to use them with caution).
In fact, the `async` marker in functions doesn't bring much (again “async function are just regular functions that return a Future”), and it would make much more sense to have a `blocking` stack-contaminating marker on function that call a blocking syscall in order to avoid performance problems due to those, but we can't have nice things because something Path Dependence something…
