Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7080143
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 28, 20262026-05-28T06:45:32+00:00 2026-05-28T06:45:32+00:00

Why have the calling thread walk into the async method until the inner ‘await’?

  • 0

Why have the calling thread walk into the async method until the inner ‘await’?

Isn’t it cleaner to just spawn a thread as soon as an async method is called. That way you know for sure that the async method returns immediately. You don’t have to worry about not doing anything expensive at the early stages of the async method.

I tend to like to know whether a method is going to execute code on ‘my’ thread or not. Whether it’s blocking or not. This model seems to open a whole spectrum of in-between possibilities.

The designers are much smarter than I am so I’m sure there is a good reason, I’d just like to get my head around it.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-28T06:45:32+00:00Added an answer on May 28, 2026 at 6:45 am

    Isn’t it cleaner to just spawn a thread as soon as an async method is called.

    The whole point of “async” methods is to avoid spawning a new thread.

    You are confusing asynchrony with concurrency. Asynchronous methods need not run on another thread to be asynchronous. The point of asynchronous methods is that they allow you to break up work into little pieces that need to run in a particular order, but not necessarily without doing other work on the same thread.

    Think of a thread as a worker you can hire. Think of a async method as a to-do list with pauses between the items. If your to-do list says “go to the store, buy milk and eggs, go home, make an omelette”, then the benefit of async is that when someone calls your cell phone between the “buy eggs” step and the “go home” step and says “can you stop by the pharmacy on your way home and pick up my prescription?” you can take the call and schedule the work before you make the omelette. With non-async methods, your phone keeps ringing until the omelette is done, and then you take the call. The UI blocks until you’re done what you’re doing.

    Your concept is that in order to keep the UI thread responsive, the moment you get the to-do list you go hire some guy to run to the store for you, so that you’re free to take the call about the pharmacy. That is expensive and unnecessary. Everything can stay on the same thread with async because the long-running task has built-in points where the UI gets to interrupt and schedule more work.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Java 6 API question. Does calling LockSupport.unpark(thread) have a happens-before relationship to the return
I have a view with which I have a button calling the following method.
I have the following code (calling a method returning IEnumerable): FibonacciWithLinq.Skip(delegate() { return 5;
I have method which create background thread to make some action. In this background
Let's say I have 10 threads running simultaneously. Is there any way of calling
We have an object, A, which contains another object, B. We have Hibernate calling
i have a problem calling multiple instance of a class that i have coded
I have C# Client application calling Windows webservice written in WCF calling Sql Procedure
We have a winforms application calling a stored procedure every few seconds. The stored
I have a problem in calling a template class I have. I declared a

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.