A bigger problem in my opinion is that Rust has chosen to follow the poll-based model (you can say that it was effectively designed around epoll), while the completion-based one (e.g. io-uring and IOCP) with high probability will be the way of doing async in future (especially in the light of Spectre and Meltdown).
Instead of carefully weighing advantages and disadvantages of both models, the decision was effectively made on the ground of "we want to ship async support as soon as possible" [1]. Unfortunately, because of this rush, Rust got stuck with a poll-based model with a whole bunch of problems without a clear solution in sight (async drop anyone?). And instead of a proper solution for self-referencing structs (yes, a really hard problem), we did end up with the hack-ish Pin solution, which has already caused a number of problems since stabilization and now may block enabling of noalias by default [2].
Many believe that Rust async story was unnecessarily rushed. While it may have helped to increase Rust adoption in the mid term, I believe it will cause serious issues in the longer term.
Instead of carefully weighing advantages and disadvantages of both models, the decision was effectively made on the ground of "we want to ship async support as soon as possible" [1]. Unfortunately, because of this rush, Rust got stuck with a poll-based model with a whole bunch of problems without a clear solution in sight (async drop anyone?). And instead of a proper solution for self-referencing structs (yes, a really hard problem), we did end up with the hack-ish Pin solution, which has already caused a number of problems since stabilization and now may block enabling of noalias by default [2].
Many believe that Rust async story was unnecessarily rushed. While it may have helped to increase Rust adoption in the mid term, I believe it will cause serious issues in the longer term.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62149#issuecomment-... [2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63818