LiteDB VS rfcs

Personally, I used to use LiteDB which is a NoSQL version which in v4 paired very nicely with F# thanks to Zaid's lovely LiteDB.FSharp library. Sadly, when v5 showed up, a lot of the F# niceties were lost given how the API was changed and v5 was not very F# friendly. You can still use it of course but you fall back to more unsafe F# code which is not ideal.

Maybe you want LiteDB? I don't think you need to write SQL, you can interact with the API.

Are you aware of LiteDB? It seems like your project is going for a very similar niche. Most people looking for this type of thing will probably go for the more mature and feature-rich solution (LiteDB). So if your project has some unique value proposition to distinguish it from LiteDB, you should elaborate on that.

Please consider using the primary key to generate an unique value on the db side.

LiteDB

Before checking this out, people might want to take a look through the issues and pull requests of which there are 500+ and 50+ respectively [1]. I was really optimistic about this project and it was headed in a great direction, but it's not in a production ready state, and it seems that the main guy behind it has decided to move onto other things. It's been about a year since there was any significant activity.

I just mention this because a lot of these little issues might only become more apparent after integrating the db into your project and so it can be a bit annoying. I ended up swapping to Linq2DB [1]. It's something, more or less, similar offering an ORM/LINQ type system as well as the ability to also use direct SQL if desired. But the neat thing is that it also uses a standardized API for the LINQ query language, so you can do things like swap from SQLite to PostgreSQL in one* line of code, so long as you're not using any provider specific extensions.

[1] - https://github.com/mbdavid/LiteDB

[2] - https://github.com/linq2db/linq2db

A mature NoSQL embedded/flatfile database like LiteDB would be nice. There are some similar Rust libraries but they aren't very close to production ready and the API tends to not be too user friendly. I had trouble finding one of these for a small app I had to write recently.

RFC: Add large language models to Rust

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603

Man, SO and family has really gone downhill. That top answer is absolutely terrible. In fact, if you care, you can literally look at the RFC discussion here to see the actual debate: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/582

Basically, `for x in y` is kind of redundant, already sorta-kinda supported by itertools, and there's also a ton of macros that sorta-kinda do it already. It would just be language bloat at this point.

Literally has nothing to do with memory management.

Congrats!

> Similarly, uv does not yet generate a platform-agnostic lockfile. This matches pip-tools, but differs from Poetry and PDM, making uv a better fit for projects built around the pip and pip-tools workflows.

Do you expect to make the higher level workflow independent of requirements.txt / support a platform-agnostic lockfile? Being attached to Rye makes me think "no".

Without being platform agnostic, to me this is dead-on-arrival and unable to meet the "Cargo for Python" aim.

> uv supports alternate resolution strategies. By default, uv follows the standard Python dependency resolution strategy of preferring the latest compatible version of each package. But by passing --resolution=lowest, library authors can test their packages against the lowest-compatible version of their dependencies. (This is similar to Go's Minimal version selection.)

> uv allows for resolutions against arbitrary target Python versions. While pip and pip-tools always resolve against the currently-installed Python version (generating, e.g., a Python 3.12-compatible resolution when running under Python 3.12), uv accepts a --python-version parameter, enabling you to generate, e.g., Python 3.7-compatible resolutions even when running under newer versions.

This is great to see though!

I can understand it being a flag on these lower level, directly invoked dependency resolution operations.

While you aren't onto the higher level operations yet, I think it'd be useful to see if there is any cross-ecosystem learning we can do for my MSRV RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3537

How are you handling pre-releases in you resolution? Unsure how much of that is specified in PEPs. Its something that Cargo is weak in today but we're slowly improving.

In the early days of Rust there was a debate about whether to support "green threads" and in doing that require runtime support. It was actually implemented and included for a time but it creates problems when trying to do library or embedded code. At the time Go for example chose to go that route, and it was both nice (goroutines are nice to write and well supported) and expensive (effectively requires GC etc). I don't remember the details but there is a Rust RFC from when they removed green threads:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/0806be4f282144cfcd55b...

I did some more digging. By RFC 899, I believe Alex Crichton meant PR 899 in this repo:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/899

Still, no real discussion of why unbuffered stderr.

Rust has had a stable SIMD vector API[1] for a long time. But, it's architecture specific. The portable API[2] isn't stable yet, but you probably can't use the portable API for some of the more exotic uses of SIMD anyway. Indeed, that's true in .NET's case too[3].

Rust does all this SIMD too. It just isn't in the standard library. But the regex crate does it. Indeed, this is where .NET got its SIMD approach for multiple substring search from in the first place[4]. ;-)

You're right that Rust's standard library is conservatively vectorized though[5]. The main thing blocking this isn't the lack of SIMD availability. It's more about how the standard library is internally structured, and the fact that things like substring search are not actually defined in `std` directly, but rather, in `core`. There are plans to fix this[6].

[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/arch/index.html

[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/simd/index.html

[3]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/72fae0073b35a404f03c3...

[4]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/88394#issuecomment-16...

[5]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/memchr#why-is-the-standard-lib...

[6]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3469