Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

re: Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

Scott Barbary — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:08:20 GMT

Could we have a compiler directive to ignore the async await keywords. With this I could write asynchronous and synchronous code that truly looked the same but have the library compile 2 different ways creating an asynchronous and a synchronous lib.

At the moment I end up doing this

public

#if ASYNCVERSION

async

#endif

MyMethod(i, j);

re: Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

mctae-light — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:46:44 GMT

Awesome

re: Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

Vaccano — Thu, 03 May 2012 02:41:56 GMT

I am sure this will all be nice. I look forward to using it in two years when XP is no longer supported by my company (and Microsoft) and I can upgrade to .net 4.5.

re: Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

herbertf — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:26:27 GMT

please correct: var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource(); requires TResult

re: Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

herbertf — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:00:57 GMT

Please add Async to the SerialPort class.

re: Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

Václav Dajbych — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:20:23 GMT

What about the System.Management.Automation library? Will be possible to invoke PowerShell commands with await keyword?

re: Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

Jeff — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:19:37 GMT

I know you want to make a point on async/await and you have my respect for that really innovative evolution of .NET.

But when emphasizing those benefits in the context of performance, am I the only one to stumble upon the utility method "GetMovieDataFromXDoc" not using sth like "yield return tempMovie"? I guess it's a nit-pick, but when talking about performance I'd like all code shown to be consistent in that matter (just imagine the xml data being several MB of size).

re: Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

Yiannis — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:28:46 GMT

Petty this did make to Silverlight 5, which desperately needs this support. Maybe a next release

:) Great work

re: Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

JesperEC — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 05:47:06 GMT

(Additionally, most of the complexity of the APM example comes from orchestrating two asynchronous operations in lockstep. It's not something you do everyday, but as long as it takes that sort of work to get right, it's also something you're likely to shy away from. That's the real genius of the TAP model; a proper, composable abstraction that's easy to get your head around.)

re: Async in 4.5: Worth the Await

JesperEC — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 05:43:12 GMT

What the await example generates does indeed look generated, but it also looks completely different.

The APM example has to go to the ends of the earth to anticipate every outcome and only use tail recursion while calling into itself. Weird switch statement or not, I wouldn't be surprised if it's pretty close to the minimal example that actually works correctly.