It's a good article but I think you need to start explaining structured concurrency from the very core of it: why it exists in the first place.

The design goal of structured concurrency is to have a safe way of using all available CPU cores on the device/computer. Modern mobile phones can have 4, 6, even 8 cores. If you don't get a decent grasp of how concurrency works and how to use it properly, your app code will be limited to 1 or 1.5 cores at most which is not a crime but a shame really.

That's where it all starts. You want to execute things in parallel but also want to ensure data integrity. If the compiler doesn't like something, it means a design flaw and/or misconception of structured concurrency, not "oh I forgot @MainActor".

Swift 6.2 is quite decent at its job already, I should say the transition from 5 to 6 was maybe a bit rushed and wasn't very smooth. But I'm happy with where Swift is today, it's an amazing, very concise and expressive language that allows you to be as minimalist as you like, and a pretty elegant concurrency paradigm as a big bonus.

I wish it was better known outside of the Apple ecosystem because it fully deserves to be a loved, general purpose mainstream language alongside Python and others.

▲

ragnese 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It's a good article but I think you need to start explaining structured concurrency from the very core of it: why it exists in the first place.

I disagree. Not every single article or essay needs to start from kindergarten and walk us up through quantum theory. It's okay to set a minimum required background and write to that.

As a seasoned dev, every time I have to dive into a new language or framework, I'll often want to read about styles and best practices that the community is coalescing around. I promise there is no shortage at all of articles about Swift concurrency aimed at junior devs for whom their iOS app is the very first real programming project they've ever done.

I'm not saying that level of article/essay shouldn't exist. I'm just saying there's more than enough. I almost NEVER find articles that are targeting the "I'm a newbie to this language/framework, but not to programming" audience.

	▲	jdgoesmarching 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I promise there is no shortage at all of articles about Swift concurrency aimed at junior devs for whom their iOS app is the very first real programming project they've ever done. You’d be surprised. Modern Swift concurrency is relatively new and the market for Swift devs is small. Finding good explainers on basic Swift concepts isn’t always easy. I’m extremely grateful to the handful of Swift bloggers who regularly share quality content.

▲

astrange 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The design goal of structured concurrency is to have a safe way of using all available CPU cores on the device/computer.

That's parallelism. Concurrency is mostly about hiding latency from I/O operations like network tasks.

▲

gilgoomesh 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Network operations are "asynchrony". Together with parallelism, they are both kinds of concurrency and Swift concurrency handles both.

Swift's "async let" is parallelism. As are Task groups.

▲

eptcyka 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, but as soon as they released their first iteration, they immediately went back to the drawing board and just slapped @MainActor on everything they could because most people really do not care.

	▲	ninkendo 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well yes, but that’s because the iOS UI is single threaded, just like every other UI framework under the sun. It doesn’t mean there isn’t good support for true parallelism in swift concurrency, it’s super useful to model interactions with isolated actors (e.g. the UI thread and the data it owns) as “asynchronous” from the perspective of other tasks… allowing you to spawn off CPU-heavy operations that can still “talk back” to the UI, but they simply have to “await” the calls to the UI actor in case it’s currently executing. The model works well for both asynchronous tasks (you await the long IO operation, your executor can go back to doing other things) and concurrent processing (you await any synchronization primitives that require mutual exclusivity, etc.) There’s a lot of gripes I have with swift concurrency but my memory is about 2 years old at this point and I know Swift 6 has changed a lot. Mainly around the complete breakage you get if you ever call ObjC code which is using GCD, and how ridiculously easy it is to shoot yourself in the foot with unsafe concurrency primitives (semaphores, etc) that you don’t even know the code you’re calling is using. But I digress…
	▲	jshier 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not really true; @MainActor was already part of the initial version of Swift Concurrency. That Apple has yet to complete the needed updates to their frameworks to properly mark up everything is a separate issue.

▲

jshier 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

async let and TaskGroups are not parallelism, they're concurrency. They're usually parallel because the Swift concurrency runtime allows them to be, but there's no guarantee. If the runtime thread pool is heavily loaded and only one core is available, they will only be concurrent, not parallel.