I only mentioned co_yield() since that's what the article was (ab)using, although perhaps justifiably so. It seems the coroutine support was added to C++ in a very flexible way, but so low level as to be daunting/inconvenient to use. It needs to have more high level facilities (like Generators) built on top.
What I was thinking of as a state machine with using std::future was a single function state machine, using switch (state) to the state specific dispatch of asynch ops using std::future, wait for completion then select next state.
> as to be daunting/inconvenient to use
I don't even know how to respond to that. How in the world are you using C++ professionally if you think coroutines are "daunting"? No one uses C++ for it's "convenience" factor. We use it for the power and control it affords.
> What I was thinking of as a state machine with using std::future was a single function state machine, using switch (state) to the state specific dispatch of asynch ops using std::future, wait for completion then select next state.
Uh huh. What about error propagation and all the other very real issues I mentioned that you are just ignoring? Why not just let the compiler do all the work the way it was spec'ed and implemented?
So it's meant to be inconvenient, and that's the only right and proper way?!
Sounds more like punishment than software design, but each to their own.
I get what you’re saying, but you kicked off this thread like an expert — even though you knew you were talking to someone who helped build the very thing you’re critiquing.
It’s pretty clear you’ve never built a production-grade async state machine.
C++ is designed to provide the plumbing, not the kitchen sink. It’s a language for building abstractions, not handing them to you — though in practice, there’s a rich ecosystem if you’d rather reuse than reinvent.
That flexibility comes at the cost of convenience, which is why most new engineers don’t start with C++.
What you call “intimidating,” I call powerful. If coroutines throw you off, you’re probably using the wrong language.
Last thought — when you run into someone who’s built the tools you rely on, ask them questions instead of trying to lecture them. I would have been more than happy to work through a pedagogical solution with you.
/ignored
> It’s pretty clear you’ve never built a production-grade async state machine.
Haha .. you have no idea.
FWIW I've built frameworks exactly for that, and it's highly likely that you've unwittingly used one of them.
Uh huh. The person who gets confused by how co_wait() actually works and thinks that coroutines are "intimidating" wrote frameworks that I would have used to build our C++ compiler. Do you not understand that cl.exe doesn't use external frameworks? lmfao
I said used, as in used in your everyday life, by interacting with computer systems whose backend implementations you are blissfully ignorant of.
But yeah, if you want to win arguments then arguing against yourself and your own hallucinations, is in your case the best way to go.
Um... you might want to look at my profile. In addition to working at MS and Apple for two decades (where I touched everything from firmware, ring-0, and ring-3), I was on the team that created SoftICE [0]: the first commercial ring-0 debugger for Windows. I also created the automated deadlock detector for BoundsChecker [1], which requires an in-depth understanding of operating system internals.
> computer systems whose backend implementations you are blissfully ignorant of
I am extremely confident in my "backend" knowledge (of course, an actual systems engineer would never refer to their work as "backend").
You wrote a "C++ framework" that runs in the "backend" of a "computer system"? Do I have that right? Please let me know what it is so that I can decompile it and see how it was implemented!
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftICE
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoundsChecker