> Languages that don't make a syntactical distinction (such as Haskell) essentially solve the problem by making everything asynchronous

What the heck did I just read. I can only guess they confused Haskell for OCaml or something; the former is notorious for requiring that all I/O is represented as values of some type encoding the full I/O computation. There's still coloring since you can't hide it, only promote it to a more general colour.

Plus, isn't Go the go-to example of this model nowadays?

▲

gf000 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Haskell has green threads. Plus nowadays Java also has virtual threads.

▲

debugnik 7 hours ago | parent [-]

And I bet those green threads still need an IO type of some sort to encode anything non-pure, plus usually do-syntax. Comparing merely concurrent computations to I/O-async is just weird. In fact, I suspect that even those green threads already have a "colourful" type, although I can't check right now.

▲

iviv 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Pure actions can be run in parallel with https://hackage-content.haskell.org/package/parallel/docs/Co...

Impure actions use the IO monad like always in Haskell: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.21.0.0/docs/Contr... (or the higher-level async library)

I suppose an extreme version of the function coloring argument could be that all types are colors.

	▲	debugnik 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[delayed]