> And then fast forward a few years and you have an entire language ecosystem built on top of the idea of making these Future objects that actually have a load of closures inside4, and all of the problems listed above (hard to name, can contain references which make them radioactive, usually require using a generic where clause, etc) apply to them because of how “infectious” closures are.
No, this is straight up not true. Almost the entirety of the futures ecosystem is built explicitly out of nameable structs that library authors implement Future on. They do not typically have a load of closures inside, usually none at all. The unnameable closures are generally in 'user-space', for stringing new futures together with less friction. There are different tradeoffs, but the ecosystem is not built on a bed of indescribable spaghetti quicksand.
No, this is straight up not true. Almost the entirety of the futures ecosystem is built explicitly out of nameable structs that library authors implement Future on. They do not typically have a load of closures inside, usually none at all. The unnameable closures are generally in 'user-space', for stringing new futures together with less friction. There are different tradeoffs, but the ecosystem is not built on a bed of indescribable spaghetti quicksand.