Develop Reference

Why does Javascript have much fewer blocking functions than Python

Moving from Javascript to Python, and looking at asyncio has me a little confused.
As someone who is new to the fundamental concepts of concurrency, I just assumed a superficial understanding of Javascript concurrency.
A basic understanding from using async / await in Javascript:
If we run any processes inside an async function, and await the response of the function, we are essentially waiting for the function to set a value on the Promise.
Makes total sense - when the Promise is given a value, we can also use callbacks such as .then() to handle the response. Alternatively, just await.
Whatever the underlying implementation of asynchronicity here is (for example all processes running on a single thread with an event loop), should it matter how we interface with it?
Now, I move to Python and start playing with asyncio. We have Futures, just like Promises. All of a sudden, I can't use my standard libraries, such as request.get(...), but I need to use non blocking network requests in libraries such as aiohttp.
What does blocking / non-blocking mean here? I assume it means the single thread that the event loop is on is blocked, so we cant process other functions in parallel.
So my 2 questions then are:
What causes the single thread to be blocked? For example in requests.get(...)
Why are most functions non-blocking in Javascript, but not in Python (i.e we don't need specific libraries such as aiohttp).
And what about languages like Go with their goroutines? Is it just a case because its a new language with concurrency built in from the beginning, that the concept of blocking functions don't exist. Or in Go it's not a single thread, so everything can inherently be parallelised?
Thanks :)

Event loop
Javascript, and python's async io make use of a concurrency model based on event loops.
(Note the plural because you could have multiple event loops which handle different kinds of tasks e.g. disk io, network io, ipc, parallel computations etc)
The general concept of an event loop is that, you have a number of things to do, so you put those things in a queue, and once in a while (like every nanosecond), the event loop picks an event from the queue, and runs it for a short while (maybe a millisecond or so), and either shoves it back in the queue if it hasn't completed, or waits until it yields control back to the event loop.
Now to answer some of your questions:
What does blocking / non-blocking mean here? I assume it means the
single thread that the event loop is on is blocked, so we cant process
other functions in parallel.
Blocking event loop
Blocking the event loop occurs when the event loop is running a task, and the task has either not finished or given back control to the event-loop, for a period of time longer than the event loop has scheduled it to run.
In the case of python's requests library, they make use of a synchronous http library, which doesn't respect the event loop; Therefore, running such a task in the loop will starve other tasks which are patiently waiting their turn to run, until the request is finished.
Why are most functions non-blocking in Javascript, but not in Python
(i.e we don't need specific libraries such as aiohttp).
JS
Everything in Javascript can block the event loop. The only way not to block the event loop is to make heavy use of callbacks via setTimeout. However, if care is not taken, even those callbacks can block the event loop if they run too long without yielding control back to the event loop via another setTimeout call.
(If you've never had to use setTimeout, but have used promises and async network requests in JS, then you are probably making use of a library that does. Most of the popular networking libraries used in browsers (ajax, axios, fetch, etc), are based on the popular XMLHttpRequest API, which provides async network IO.)
Python
In python, the story is slightly different: Before asyncio, there was no such thing as as "event loop". Everything must run to completion before python interpreter moves on to the next thing. This is part of what makes python very easy to learn (and dare I say, to create...). The reason for this, comes in the form of the python GIL, which in simple terms enforces a single order of execution for any python program. I encourage you to click that link, and read why the GIL exists.
And what about languages like Go with their goroutines?
Note: I am not a go programmer, but I read something
How is Go different?
The only difference between the way go handles goroutines and how python asyncio/js do their event loops, is that go makes more use of os threads to ensure that threads are scheduled fairly and make full use of the machine they run in.
While js callbacks/asyncio tasks will often run in the same thread as the event loop, goroutines are able to run in seperate OS threads and over multiple cores, thus giving them higher availability and higher parallelism. (In that case, we could almost consider goroutines to be closer to OS threads in terms of how much time they actually get to run, as compared to green threads which are bound by the amount of time the event loop's thread runs.)

Mechanics of Javascript Asynchronous execution

Can someone please explain the mechanics behind the asynchronous behavior of javascript, specifically when it comes to a .subscribe(), or provide a link that would help me understand what's really going on under the hood?
Everything appears to be single-threaded, then I run into situations that make it either multi-threaded, or seem multi-threaded, because I still can't shake this feeling I'm being fooled.
Everything seems to run perfectly synchronously, one instruction at a time, until I call .subscribe(). Then, suddenly, something happens - it returns immediately, and somehow the next outside function runs even though the subscription code has not yet. This feels asynchronous to me, how does the browser keep things straight - if not threads, can someone please explain the mechanics in play that is allowing this to occur?
I also notice something happens with debug stepping, I can't step in to the callback, I can only put a breakpoint within it. In what order should I really expect things to occur?

Your Javascript itself runs single threaded unless you're talking about WebWorkers (in the browser) or WorkerThreads (in nodejs).
But, many functions you call or operations you initiate in Javascript can run separate from that single threaded nature of your Javascript. For example, networking is all non-blocking and asynchronous. That means that when you make a call to fetch() in the browser of http.get() in nodejs, you are initiating an http request and then the mechanics of making that request and receiving the response are done independent of your Javascript. Here are some example steps:
You make a call to fetch() in the browser to make an http request to some other host.
The code behind fetch, sends out the http request and then immediately returns.
Your Javascript continues to execute (whatever you had on the lines of code immediately after the fetch() call will execute.
Sometime later, the response from the fetch() call arrives back on the network interface. Some code (internal to the Javascript environment) and independent from your single thread of Javascript sees that there's incoming data to read from the http response. When that code has gathered the http response, it inserts an event into the Javascript event queue.
When the single thread of Javascript has finished executing whatever event it was executing, it checks the event queue to see if there's anything else to do. At some point, it will find the event that signified the completion of the previous fetch() call and there will be a callback function associated with that event. It will call that callback which will resolve the promise associated with the fetch() call which will cause your own Javascript in the .then() handler for that promise to run and your Javascript will be presented the http response you were waiting for.
Because these non-blocking, asynchronous operations (such as networking, timers, disk I/O, etc...) all work in this same manner and can proceed independent of your Javascript execution, they can run in parallel with your Javascript execution and many of them can be in flight at the same time while your Javascript is doing other things. This may sometimes give the appearance of multiple threads and there likely are some native code threads participating in some of this, though there is still only one thread of your Javascript (as long as we're not talking about WebWorkers or WorkerThreads).
The completion of these asynchronous operations is then synchronized with the single thread of Javascript via the event queue. When they finish, they place an event in the event queue and when the single thread of Javascript finishes what it was last doing, it grabs the next event from the event queue and processes it (calling a Javascript callback).
I also notice something happens with debug stepping, I can't step in to the callback, I can only put a breakpoint within it. In what order should I really expect things to occur?
This is because the callback isn't called synchronously. When you step over the function that you passed a callback to, it executes that function and it returns. Your callback is not yet called. So, the debugger did exactly what you asked it to do. It executed that function and that function returned. The callback has not yet executed. Your are correct that if you want to see the asynchronous callback execute, you need to place a breakpoint in it so when it does get called some time in the future, the debugger will then stop there and let you step further. This is a complication of debugging asynchronous things, but you get used to it after awhile.
Everything appears to be single-threaded, then I run into situations that make it either multi-threaded, or seem multi-threaded, because I still can't shake this feeling I'm being fooled.
This is because there can be many asynchronous operations in flight at the same time as they aren't running your Javascript while they are doing their thing. So, there's still only one thread of Javascript, even though there are multiple asynchronous operations in flight. Here's a code snippet:
console.log("starting...");
fetch(host1).then(result1 => { console.log(result1)});
fetch(host2).then(result2 => { console.log(result2)});
fetch(host3).then(result3 => { console.log(result3)});
fetch(host4).then(result4 => { console.log(result4)});
console.log("everything running...");
If you run this, you will see something like this in the console:
starting...
everything running...
result1
result2
result3
result4
Actually, the 4 results may be in any order relative to one another, but they will be after the first two lines of debug output. In this case, you started four separate fetch() operations and they are running independent of your Javascript. In fact, your Javascript is free to do other things while they run. When they finish and when your Javascript isn't doing anything else, your four .then() handlers will each get called at the appropriate time.
When the networking behind each fetch() operation finishes, it will insert an event in the Javascript event queue and if your Javascript isn't doing anything at the time, the insertion of that event will wake it up and cause it to process that completion event. If it was doing something at the time, then when it finishes that particular piece of Javascript and control returns back to the system, it will see there's an event waiting in the event queue and will process it, calling your Javascript callback associated with that event.

Search for articles or videos on the “JavaScript Event Loop”. You’ll find plenty of them. Probably go through a few of them and it will start to make sense (particularly the single-threaded aspect of it)
I found this one with a quick search, and it does a good, very high-level walkthrough.
The JavaScript Event Loop explained
The main impact of JavaScript single threading is that your code is never pre-emptively interrupted to execute code on another thread.
It may seem that some code is being skipped, but close attention to the syntax will show that what is being “skipped” is just a callback function or closure to be called at a time in the future (when it will be placed into the event queue and processed single-threadedly, itself).
Careful, it can be tricky to follow nested callbacks.
Probably also look into Promises and async /await (‘just syntactic convenience on the event loop, but can really help code readability)

Multithreading javascript

I want to create a real thread which manages some operations in javascript.
After several search, i found 'Web Workers', 'setTimeout' or 'setInterval'.
The problem is that 'Web Workers' don't have access to global variables and therefore can't modify my global arrays directly (or i do not know how).
'setTimeout' is not really what i need.
'setInterval' sets my problem, however it is probably that after many times my operations could last longer. Therefore i am afraid that two interval overlaps.
Finally i need a infinite loop which executes a series of operations once after another. Does it exist or do I have to content myself with 'setInterval'? Is there an alternative with jQuery or other? If it is not, is what I can expect in the near future to see the developer make it available?

I'm going to assume you're talking about in a web browser.
JavaScript in web browsers has a single main UI thread, and then zero or more web worker threads. Web workers are indeed isolated from the main UI thread (and each other) and so don't have access to globals (other than their own). This is intentional, it makes both implementing the environment and using it dramatically simpler and less error-prone. (Even if that isolation weren't enforced, it's good practice for multi-threaded programming anyway.) You send messages to, and receive messages from, web workers via postMessage and the message event.
JavaScript threads (the main UI thread and any web workers) work via a thread-specific task queue (aka "job queue"): Anything that needs to happen on a JavaScript thread (the initial run of the code when a page loads, handling of an event, timer callbacks [more below]) adds a task to the queue. The JavaScript engine runs a loop: Pick up the next task, run it, pick up the next, run it, etc. When there are no tasks, the thread goes quiet waiting for a task to arrive.
setTimeout doesn't create a separate thread, it just schedules a task (a call to a callback) to be added to the task queue for that same thread after a delay (the timeout). Once the timeout occurs, the task is queued, and when the task reaches the front of the queue the thread will handle it.
setInterval does exactly what setTimeout does, but schedules a recurring callback: Once the timeout occurs, it queues the task, then sets up another timeout to queue the task again later. (The rules around the timing are a bit complex.)
If you just want something to recur, forever, at intervals, and you want that thing to have access to global variables in the main UI thread, then you either:
Use setInterval once, which will set up recurring calls back to your code, or
Use setTimeout, and every time you get your callback, use setTimeout again to schedule the next one.
From your description, it sounds as though you may be calling setInterval more than once (for instance, on each callback), which quickly bogs down the thread as you're constantly telling it to do more and more work.

The last thing is easy: webworker start their work when they get a message to (onmessage) and sit idle otherwise. (that's highly simplified, of course).
Global variables are not good for real multi-threading and even worse with the reduced thing JavaScript offers. You have to rewrite your workers to work standalone with only the information given.
Subworkers have a messaging system which you might be able to make good use of.
But the main problem with JavaScript is: once asynchronous always asynchronous. There is no way to "join" threads or a "wait4" or something similar. The only thing that can do both is the XMLHttprequest, so you can do it over a webserver but I doubt the lag that causes would do any good. BTW: synchronous XMLHttprequest is deprecated says Mozilla which also has a page listing all of the way where a synchronous request is necessary or at least very useful.

I know that callback function runs asynchronously, but why?

Which part of syntax provides the information that this function should run in other thread and be non-blocking?
Let's consider simple asynchronous I/O in node.js
var fs = require('fs');
var path = process.argv[2];
fs.readFile(path, 'utf8', function(err,data) {
var lines = data.split('\n');
console.log(lines.length-1);
});
What exactly makes the trick that it happens in background? Could anyone explain it precisely or paste a link to some good resource? Everywhere I looked there is plenty of info about what callback is, but nobody explains why it actually works like that.
This is not the specific question about node.js, it's about general concept of callback in each programming language.
EDIT:
Probably the example I provided is not best here. So let's do not consider this node.js code snippet. I'm asking generally - what makes the trick that program keeps executing when encounter callback function. What is in syntax
that makes callback concept a non-blocking one?
Thanks in advance!

There is nothing in the syntax that tells you your callback is executed asynchronously. Callbacks can be asynchronous, such as:
setTimeout(function(){
console.log("this is async");
}, 100);
or it can be synchronous, such as:
an_array.forEach(function(x){
console.log("this is sync");
});
So, how can you know if a function will invoke the callback synchronously or asynchronously? The only reliable way is to read the documentation.
You can also write a test to find out if documentation is not available:
var t = "this is async";
some_function(function(){
t = "this is sync";
});
console.log(t);
How asynchronous code work
Javascript, per se, doesn't have any feature to make functions asynchronous. If you want to write an asynchronous function you have two options:
Use another asynchronous function such as setTimeout or web workers to execute your logic.
Write it in C.
As for how the C coded functions (such as setTimeout) implement asynchronous execution? It all has to do with the event loop (or mostly).
The Event Loop
Inside the web browser there is this piece of code that is used for networking. Originally, the networking code could only download one thing: the HTML page itself. When Mosaic invented the <img> tag the networking code evolved to download multiple resources. Then Netscape implemented progressive rendering of images, they had to make the networking code asynchronous so that they can draw the page before all images are loaded and update each image progressively and individually. This is the origin of the event loop.
In the heart of the browser there is an event loop that evolved from asynchronous networking code. So it's not surprising that it uses an I/O primitive as its core: select() (or something similar such as poll, epoll etc. depending on OS).
The select() function in C allows you to wait for multiple I/O operations in a single thread without needing to spawn additional threads. select() looks something like:
select (max, readlist, writelist, errlist, timeout)
To have it wait for an I/O (from a socket or disk) you'd add the file descriptor to the readlist and it will return when there is data available on any of your I/O channels. Once it returns you can continue processing the data.
The javascript interpreter saves your callback and then calls the select() function. When select() returns the interpreter figures out which callback is associated with which I/O channel and then calls it.
Conveniently, select() also allows you to specify a timeout value. By carefully managing the timeout passed to select() you can cause callbacks to be called at some time in the future. This is how setTimeout and setInterval are implemented. The interpreter keeps a list of all timeouts and calculates what it needs to pass as timeout to select(). Then when select() returns in addition to finding out if there are any callbacks that needs to be called due to an I/O operation the interpreter also checks for any expired timeouts that needs to be called.
So select() alone covers almost all the functionality necessary to implement asynchronous functions. But modern browsers also have web workers. In the case of web workers the browser spawns threads to execute javascript code asynchronously. To communicate back to the main thread the workers must still interact with the event loop (the select() function).
Node.js also spawns threads when dealing with file/disk I/O. When the I/O operation completes it communicates back with the main event loop to cause the appropriate callbacks to execute.
Hopefully this answers your question. I've always wanted to write this answer but was to busy to do so previously. If you want to know more about non-blocking I/O programming in C I suggest you take a read this: http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Waiting-for-I_002fO.html
For more information see also:
Is nodejs representing Reactor or Proactor design pattern?
Performance of NodeJS with large amount of callbacks

First of all, if something is not Async, it means it's blocking. So the javascript runner stops on that line until that function is over (that's what a readFileSync would do).
As we all know, fs is a IO library, so that kind of things take time (tell the hardware to read some files is not something done right away), so it makes a lot of sense that anything that does not require only the CPU, it's async, because it takes time, and does not need to freeze the rest of the code for waiting another piece of hardware (while the CPU is idle).
I hope this solves your doubts.

A callback is not necessarily asynchronous. Execution depends entirely on how fs.readFile decides to treat the function parameter.
In JavaScript, you can execute a function asynchronously using for example setTimeout.
Discussion and resources:
How does node.js implement non-blocking I/O?
Concurrency model and Event Loop
Wikipedia:
There are two types of callbacks, differing in how they control data flow at runtime: blocking callbacks (also known as synchronous callbacks or just callbacks) and deferred callbacks (also known as asynchronous callbacks).

In Node.js, If i am writing a long running function should I be using setTimeout

or something else to queue up the rest of my function? and use callbacks or does node handle that automatically?
I imagine that I would need to start my code and if there are other things that need to occur I should be giving up my functions control to give other events control. Is this the case? Or can i be stingy and node will cut off my function when I have used enough time?
Thanks.

If your long-running function does a lot of I/O just make sure that you do this in a non-blocking way. This is how node.js achieves concurrency even though it only has a single thread: As soon as any task needs to wait for something, another task gets the CPU.
If your long-running function needs uninterrupted CPU time (or the I/O cannot be made asynchronously) , then you probably need to fork out a separate process, because otherwise every one else will have to wait until you are done.
Or can i be stingy and node will cut off my function when I have used enough time?
No. This is totally cooperative multi-tasking. Node cannot preempt you.

You should put your long running function or the code which takes long to execute into separate process because it can, for example, block other incoming requests while this code/function is executing. From node.js website:
But what about multiple-processor concurrency? Aren't threads
necessary to scale programs to multi-core computers? You can start new
processes via child_process.fork() these other processes will be
scheduled in parallel.
I would suggest to watch these articles/presentations in order to get a bigger picture on this topic:
Understanding the node.js event loop
Understanding event loops and writing great code for Node.js
YUI Theater — Tom Hughes-Croucher: “How to Stop Writing Spaghetti Code” (45 min.)