UniTask VS UnityNamedPipe

If you develop projects in Unity - i really recommend to see at UniTaks.

Give the UniTask library a look https://github.com/Cysharp/UniTask

What I would say, however, is that I much prefer async / await via UniTask over standard Coroutines!

Lastly I recommend using UniTask to better await an asset load, use it, and release it without clunky Coroutines. Happy to give examples of how to use UniTask to update this code.

If you absolutely must muck about with threads in Unity yourself (though I struggle to think of a reason why you'd need to for the example given) then Unity's Jobs system is probably the way to go - though in most cases you can likely achieve whatever it is you're trying to achieve using something like UniTask (my preference) which gives you much nicer async / await support.

Great comment. The Unity task library is UniTask.

There are a few problems. Firstly use UniTask for async related things in Unity. Provides much better async integration with Unity.

This is where UniTask comes in. If your project relies heavily on asynchronous code-- it sounds like it does -- you'll likely enjoy this package. It doesn't allocate, hooks into Unity's PlayerLoop for per-frame timing, and allows for return types. You can even await existing Coroutines.

UniTask is a popular async/await library that doesn't have this problem.

This article shows how to control scenes on a Unity standalone player by a Windows application with NamedPipe like the following demonstration. The full source is on the GitHub repository.