I don't quite agree with this piece, as it is comparing apples and oranges.
What you want is patterns for having safety, efficiency and maintainability for concurrent and parallelized processing.
One early pattern for doing that was codified as POSIX threads - continue the blocking processing patterns of POSIX so that you can have multiple parallelizable streams of execution with primitives to protect against simultaneous use of shared resources and data.
IO_URING is not such a pattern. It is a kernel API. You can try to use it directly, but you can also use it as one component in a userland thread systems, in actor systems, in structured concurrency systems, etc.
So the author is seemingly comparing the shipped pattern (threads) vs direct manipulation, and complaining that the direct manipulation isn't as safe or maintainable. It wasn't meant to be.
What you want is patterns for having safety, efficiency and maintainability for concurrent and parallelized processing.
One early pattern for doing that was codified as POSIX threads - continue the blocking processing patterns of POSIX so that you can have multiple parallelizable streams of execution with primitives to protect against simultaneous use of shared resources and data.
IO_URING is not such a pattern. It is a kernel API. You can try to use it directly, but you can also use it as one component in a userland thread systems, in actor systems, in structured concurrency systems, etc.
So the author is seemingly comparing the shipped pattern (threads) vs direct manipulation, and complaining that the direct manipulation isn't as safe or maintainable. It wasn't meant to be.