"Fibers (sometimes called stackful coroutines or user mode cooperatively scheduled threads) and stackless
coroutines (compiler synthesized state machines) represent two distinct programming facilities with vast performance
and functionality differences."
It's pretty clear that fibers cover goroutines, green threads, M:N threads, etc., this is just Microsoft-specific name for them.
It does yes. However, they still do not seem to be making the claim that goroutines are a bad idea. The name conflation is unfortunate, but almost all of the problems are C++-specific, and their conclusion fails to be precise about this.
The paper states that fibers, including goroutines, are a bad idea. The part that is not specific to C++ is the FFI cost (cited as 160 ns in the paper).
We already have a thread discussing this. If this is truly a problem, then I shall ask why C’s Go interop is so bad - if it were better, we’d have access to a much nicer TLS library!
It's pretty clear that fibers cover goroutines, green threads, M:N threads, etc., this is just Microsoft-specific name for them.