Bruno Jouhier

@AndreasMadsen If I understand well, @laverdet is asking for 2 new functions in the `async_hooks` API: `getAndClearStack()` and `restoreStack()`. These functions would only be called by 3 functions of the...

Fibers and coroutines are equivalent. The difference is between fibers and generators. Fibers and coroutines support _deep_ continuations. This means that you can yield at any depth in the call...

There is also a performance benefit with some code patterns. - If you have many layers of calls on top of async APIs, all the intermediate calls are vanilla JS...

I haven't done debugging with `co` but I've written a library called `galaxy`, which is similar to `co`. Debugging experience is not great because you have to step through the...

> > because you have to step through the library at every call > > So you're saying this doesn't happen with Fibers? Dang I'll just stop talking and give...

I forgot to mention parallelizing. If you write all your code as described above, all I/O operations will be serialized and you won't get the parallelizing benefits that node naturally...

Yes, `map` is blocked by `filter`. Not great if the different steps perform I/O because `map` will only start after `filter` has completed all its I/O. It would be better...

@erobwen. So true. @cztomsik. I'd rather say: "it is impossible to do lazy loading with _stackless_ coroutines". Coroutines come in 2 flavors: stackful (fibers) and stackless (async/await).

That's a cool idea. I'm not sure it is that easy to implement but I'll investigate. In the mean time, you can solve this with `mapStar`: ``` javasscript // don't...

I gave it a try as it seemed rather easy to implement (and not risky because an exception was thrown in this case). This is really a cool idea :smile:...