> it started because JS can't do parallel any other way
There are two different subcultures pushing for asynchronous. You are correct, one is based on people learning to program in JS and suffering from either Stockholm syndrome or some other problem that blocks them from thinking in sequential IO.
The other grew mostly out of the 10k problem at the late 00's, and is very correct on their assessment in that asynchronous code allows for some high-performing architectures that are much better than anything you can get synchronously.
Those two groups are trying to solve different problems, with different architectures, in different parts of the software stack. Rust's async supports both of them, so the discourse is really confusing.
There are two different subcultures pushing for asynchronous. You are correct, one is based on people learning to program in JS and suffering from either Stockholm syndrome or some other problem that blocks them from thinking in sequential IO.
The other grew mostly out of the 10k problem at the late 00's, and is very correct on their assessment in that asynchronous code allows for some high-performing architectures that are much better than anything you can get synchronously.
Those two groups are trying to solve different problems, with different architectures, in different parts of the software stack. Rust's async supports both of them, so the discourse is really confusing.