The topic of coroutines (or fibers, or continuations) for JavaScript comes up from time to time, so I figured I’d write down my thoughts on the matter. I admit to having a soft spot for crazy control-flow features like continuations, but they’re unlikely ever to make it into ECMAScript. With good reason.

The big justification for coroutines in JavaScript is non-blocking I/O. As we all know, asynchronous I/O leads to callback API’s, which lead to nested lambdas, which lead to… the pyramid of doom:

range.on("preheat", function() {
    pot.on("boil", function() {
        rice.on("cooked", function() {

Whereas, if you look at the README for node-fibers, you’ll see this pleasant-looking example: {
    console.log('wait...' + new Date);
    console.log('ok...' + new Date);

That looks pretty sweet. It’s a synchronous version of setTimeout that doesn’t block the main thread. This seems like a nice combination of the sequential style of synchronous code but with the responsiveness of non-blocking I/O. Why wouldn’t we want something like this in ECMAScript?

Coroutines are almost as pre-emptive as threads

Part of the beauty of JavaScript’s event loop is that there’s a very clear synchronization point for reaching a stable state in your programs: the end of the current turn. You can go ahead and leave things in a funky intermediate state for as long as you like, and as long as you stitch everything back up in time for the next spin of the event loop, no other code can run in the meantime. That means you can be sure that while your object is lying in pieces on the floor, nobody else can poke at it before you put it back together again.

Once you add coroutines, you never know when someone might call yield. Any function you call has the right to pause and resume you whenever they want, even after any number of spins of the event loop. Now any time you find yourself modifying state, you start worrying that calling a function might interrupt some code you intended to be transactional. Take something as simple as swapping a couple fields of an object:

var tmp =; =; = munge(tmp);

What happens if munge does a yield and only resumes your code after a few other events fire? Those events could interact with obj, and they’d see it in this intermediate state where both and are the same value, because hasn’t yet been updated.

We’ve seen this movie before. This is just like Java’s threads, where any time you’re working with state, you have to worry about who might try to touch your data before it reaches a stable point. To be fair, life is actually far worse in Java, where almost every single basic operation of the language can be pre-empted. But still, with coroutines, every function call becomes a potential pre-emption point.

Host frames make coroutines unportable

And then there’s the implementation problem. Unless your JavaScript engine doesn’t use a stack (and they all do), coroutines would have to be able to save a stack on the heap and restore it back on the stack later. But what if JavaScript code calls into code implemented in the host language (usually C++)? Some engines implement functions like Array.prototype.forEach in C++. How would they handle code like this? {
    array.forEach(function(x) {
        console.log('wait: ' + x);
        console.log('ok: ' + x);

Other languages with coroutines take different approaches. Lua allows implementations to throw an error if user code tries to suspend host activations. This would simply be unportable, since different engines would implement different standard libraries in C++.

The Scheme community tends to demand a lot from their continuations, so they expect functions like for-each and map to be suspended. This could mean either forcing all the standard libraries to be self-hosted, or using more complicated implementation strategies than traditional stacks.

Simply put: browser vendors are not going to do this. Modern JS engines are extraordinary feats of engineering, and rearchitecting their entire stack mechanism is just not realistic. Then when you consider that these changes could hurt performance of ordinary function calls, well… end of discussion.

Shallow coroutines to the rescue

OK, back to the pyramid of doom. It really does kind of suck. I mean, you could name and lift out your functions, but then you break up the sequential flow even worse, and you get a combinatorial explosion of function arguments for all those upvars.

This is why I’m excited about generators. Generators are a lot like coroutines, with one important difference: they only suspend their own function activation. In ES6, yield isn’t a function that anyone can use, it’s a built-in operator that only a generator function can use. With generators, calling a JS function is as benign as it ever was. You never have to worry that a function call might yield and stop you from doing what you were trying to do.

But it’s still possible to build an API similar to node-fibers. This is the idea of task.js. The fibers example looks pretty similar in task.js:

Task(function() {
    console.log('wait... ' + new Date);
    yield sleep(1000);
    console.log('ok... ' + new Date);

The big difference is that the sleep function doesn’t implicitly yield; instead, it returns a promise. The task then explicitly yields the promise back to the task.js scheduler. When the promise is fulfilled, the scheduler wakes the task back up to continue. Hardly any wordier than node-fibers, but with the benefit that you can always tell when and what you’re suspending.

Coroutines no, generators yes

Coroutines are not going to happen in JavaScript. They would break one of the best features of JavaScript: the simplicity of the event loop execution model. And the demands they would place on current engines for portability are simply unrealistic. But generator functions are easy to add to existing engines, they have none of the portability issues of coroutines, and they give you just enough power to write non-blocking I/O in a synchronous style without being “threads lite.”