> async/await came out of C# (well at least the JS version of it).

Not sure if inspired by it, but async/await is just like Haskells do-notation, except specialized for one type: Promise/Future. A bit of a shame. Do-notation works for so many more types.

- for lists, it behaves like list-comprehensions.

- for Maybes it behaves like optional chaining.

- and much more...

All other languages pile on extra syntax sugar for that. It's really beautiful that such seemingly unrelated concepts have a common core.

▲

rafaelmn 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I knew someone was going to bring up monads that's why I put JS version :) JS took the C# syntax.

▲

WorldMaker 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Similarly F#'s computation expressions predate C#'s syntax, and there is some evidence that C# language designers were looking at F#'s computation expressions. Since the Linq work, C# has been very aware of Monads, and very slow and methodical about how it approaches them. Linq syntax is a subtly compromised computation expression and async/await is a similar compromise.

It's interesting to wonder about the C# world where those things were more unified.

It's also interesting to explore in C# all the existing ways that Linq syntax can be used to work with arbitrary monads and also Task<T> can be abused to use async/await syntax for arbitrary monads. (In JS, it is even easier to bend async/await to arbitrary monads given the rules of a "thenable" are real simple.)

	▲	ngruhn 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> use async/await syntax for arbitrary monads. (In JS, it is even easier to bend async/await to arbitrary monads given the rules of a "thenable" are real simple.) I tried once to hack list comprehensions into JS by abusing async/await. You can monkey patch `then` onto Array and define it as flatMap and IIRC you can indeed await arrays that way, but the outer async function always returns a regular Promise. You can't force it to return an instance of the patched Array type.