kotlinx.coroutines VS swift-evolution

Now, let's consider an example. For instance, let's create a Kotlin/JVM project with kotlinx.coroutines library as a dependency.

Greetings community, I just submited a PR to Kotlin coroutines with two additional operators :

The harder parts of Kotlin are going to be things like kotlinx.coroutines, but that's just a library, not a core part of the language. It's about as hard to learn as a comparable library in another language, like the Task Parallel Library in .NET.

Kotlin has coroutines that are supported by the language and implemented by a library (the implementation remains platform-dependent): kotlinx.coroutines and a sandbox environment is available here to try it out.

That said, since it seems like you're doing UI stuff (Android?), you're best off doing all of the UI code in coroutines, using Dispatchers.Main as a context (as provided by one of the platform-specific coroutine libraries), since this will guarantee that your UI code will be safely run in the UI thread.

[A Vision for Embedded Swift](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/visions/e...) has the details on this new build mode and is quite interesting.

> Effectively, there will be two bottom layers of Swift, and the lower one, “non-allocating” Embedded Swift, will necessarily be a more restricted compilation mode (e.g. classes will be disallowed as they fundamentally require heap allocations) and likely to be used only in very specialized use cases. “Allocating” Embedded Swift should allow classes and other language facilities that rely on the heap (e.g. indirect enums).

Also, this seems to maybe hint at the Swift runtime eventually being reimplemented in non-allocating Embedded Swift rather than the C++ (?) that it uses now:

> The Swift runtime APIs will be provided as an implementation that’s optimized for small codesize and will be available as a static library in the toolchain for common CPU architectures. Interestingly, it’s possible to write that implementation in “non-allocating” Baremetal Swift.

I may be out of my depth here as I've only casually used Rust, but this seems similar to Swift's proposed lifetime dependencies[1]. They're not in the type system formally so maybe they're closer to poloneius work

[1]: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/3055becc53a3c3...

Swift recently adopted a region-based approach for safe concurrency that builds on Milano et al’s ideas: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

No, it's not. Refcounting CAN be a garbage collection algorithm, but in Swift it's deterministic and done at compile time. Not to mention recently added support for non-copyable types that enforces unique ownership: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

You can stackallocate buffers with unsafe Swift but it's not exactly fun to use. https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals/0322-temporary-buffers.md

If the docs do not suffice, read the concurrency proposals of Swift Evolution. The authors describe the semantics in a very detailed way there.