aHash VS rfcs

If you find yourself in a situation where you've got some kind of HashMap in your JSON data, try using ahash as the hasher... either via the ready-made ahash::AHashMap or via something like type AHashMap = std::collections::HashMap; if you're using something like serde_with which doesn't like the ready-made one.

aHash claims it is faster than t1ha[1].

The t1ha crate also hasn't been updated in over three years so the benchmark in this link should be current.

[1] https://github.com/tkaitchuck/aHash/blob/master/compare/read...

When I recently went shopping for fast hashes for short strings, I settled on wyhash, but ahash[0] seemed like it would have been better if I had bothered to port it from Rust.

> In that time you can FNV-1a a "short" string.

Not if you read it one byte at a time like in TFA!

It looks like the best FNV for short strings in smhasher[1] is comparably fast to ahash[2] on short strings, but I proposed doing slightly less work than ahash.

> From the top of my head, t1ha, falkhash, meowhash and metrohash are using AES-NI and none of them are particularly fast on short inputs, and at least two of them have severe issues, despite guarding against lots of vulnerabilities, which your construction does not.

For issues like reading past the ends of buffers and discarding the extra values, it would be nice if programmers could arrange to have buffers that could be used this way. I posted a thing for hashing strings of a fixed length though, to compare with the thing for hashing strings of a fixed length in TFA.

[0]: https://github.com/tkaitchuck/aHash/blob/master/src/aes_hash...

[1]: https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/master/doc/FNV1a_YT....

[2]: https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/master/doc/ahash64.t...

Regarding the hashing function: I'll already tried using aHash which sped thing things up but not by a lot.

aHash has a very good comparison doc: https://github.com/tkaitchuck/aHash/blob/master/compare/readme.md (Personally, I use it more to compare non-aHash hashes than to aHash; aHash has no reason to be biased between other hashes, though it does have reason to be biased for itself. I trust their analysis to not be biased, but it's always better to be more sure.)

Hi, i was under the impression that with resolver = "2" cargo would be able to respect the target for the dependencies. Currently i have the problem that while using sqlx, surf and gloo in projects that are in the same workspace – thus sharing a single Cargo.lock – i get a cyclic dependency with aHash that is roughly discussed here

Apparently there is a patch for the SMHasher here which adds support for ahash:

https://github.com/tkaitchuck/aHash/tree/master/smhasher

There are also ahash's own benchmarks here:

https://github.com/tkaitchuck/aHash/blob/master/compare/test...

They use the wyhash Rust crate, so if wyhash itself was updated doing a head to head comparison would boil down to updating the wyhash crate and rerunning ahash's benchmark suite.

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