`.ManageTasks` doesn't seem to have a clear analogue that I can think of right now, that's an interesting one.
`.TaskPool` looks like `StreamExt::buffer_unordered` unless I'm missing something. The code example in the README didn't really say a lot for someone who isn't already well-versed in the library.
That's on me for making blanket statements -- my apologies. Yep, I know about the first two and I used them regularly.
My issue in general is that async Rust involves using several things at the same time (not just the two keywords) and this should be surfaced much earlier in any intro material and the maintainers of the language (or the libraries, or both) should just double down on whatever they feel is the best way to do async Rust.
The stance of "you have freedom, make your choice and assemble your own LEGO" is not very productive. I want Rust to start being a bit more opinionated.
Though I'll recognize this is just a personal taste but I still have to defend it by saying that as a programmer who is paid to deliver, I want to be able to deliver in predictable timelines and not having to go off on an adventure to learn all the intricacies of async Rust before I am able to write a feature.
`.ManageTasks` doesn't seem to have a clear analogue that I can think of right now, that's an interesting one.
`.TaskPool` looks like `StreamExt::buffer_unordered` unless I'm missing something. The code example in the README didn't really say a lot for someone who isn't already well-versed in the library.