The problem with Node is that the async decision is in the hand of the leaf node, which bubbles up to the parent where my code sits. Async/await is nice and a goal in most modern Node, but there are codebases (old and new) where async/await is just not an option for many reasons.

Node dictates that when faced with an async function the result is that I must either implement async myself so I can do await or go into callback rabbit holes by doing .then(). If the function author is nice, they will give me both async and sync versions: readFile() and readFileSync(). But that sucks.

The alternative would be that 1) the decision to go async were mine; 2) the language supports my decision with syntax/semantics.

Ie. if I call the one and only fs.readFile() and want to block I would then do

       sync fs.readFile()

Node would take care of performing a nice synchronous call that is beneficial to its event-loop logic and callback pyramid. End of the story. And not some JS an implementation such as deasync [1] but in core Node.

1. https://www.npmjs.com/package/deasync

> And the alternative without async-await is ? blocking the event loop or the callback pyramid.

No, just callbacks and event handlers (and an interface like select/poll/epoll/kqueue for the OS primitives on which you need to wait). People were writing threadless non-blocking code back in the 80's, and while no one loved the paradigm it was IMHO less bad than the mess we've created trying to avoid it.

One of the problems I'm trying to point out is that we're so far down the rabbit hole in this madness that we've forgotten the problems we're actually trying to solve. And in particular we've forgotten that they weren't that hard to begin with.

They could have added threads to Node as well? Granted, it would have been a lot of difficult work.