agg VS rust

asciinema to record the terminal and then agg to convert that to gif.

I wrote a blog post[1] breaking down tools to record terminal sessions just a couple weeks ago. I wasn't aware of this particular one but it looks like it's going to have issues with recording anything that requires user input.

My post describes how to make high quality recordings of terminal sessions that can be replayed in the terminal, or shared on the web. I'm defining high quality as recordings with zero typos, and relatively controlled timing between commands.

I'm going to assume this works well because all the stuff from Charm seems to, BUT its limitations are ... problematic. I think the techniques i list in the post combined with agg[2] or gifcast[3] to covert it to a gif would be a better solution for non-trivial cases.

I'll add notes about agg and gifcast to the post this evening hopefully.

[1]: https://weblog.masukomi.org/2022/10/11/recording_and_sharing...

[2]: https://github.com/asciinema/agg

[3]: https://github.com/dstein64/gifcast

Now, we need to generate the animated gif file. The tool to this job is the might agg - asciinema gif generator.

If you haven't dipped your touch-typing fingers into Rust yet, you really owe it to yourself. Rust is a modern programming language with features that make it suitable not only for systems programming -- its original purpose, but just about any other environment, too; there are frameworks that let your build web services, web applications including user interfaces, software for embedded devices, machine learning solutions, and of course, command-line tools. Since a custom GitHub Action is essentially a command-line tool that interacts with the system through files and environment variables, Rust is perfectly suited for that as well.

Here's an example of someone citing a disagreement between CRT and shell32:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44650

This in addition to the Rust CVE mentioned elsewhere in the thread which was rooted in this issue:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/04/09/cve-2024-24576.html

Here are some quick programs to test contrasting approaches. I don't have examples of inputs where they parse differently on hand right now, but I know they exist. This was also a problem that was frequently discussed internally when I worked at MSFT.

    #include 

> instead of choosing a certain numbered version of the random library (if I remember correctly) I let cargo download the latest version which had a completely different API.

Yeah, they didn't follow the instructions and got burned. I still think that multiple things went wrong simultaneously for that experience. I wonder if more prevalent uses of `#[doc(alias = "name")]` being leveraged by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120730 (which now that I check only accounts for methods and not functions, I should get on that!) so that when changing APIs around people at least get a slightly better experience.

Almost fixed the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123325

Rust: A secure, efficient, and modern programming language (omitting ten thousand words). You can simply follow the installation instructions provided on the official website.

Recently did something similar in Rust but for generating SVGs. We've adopted it for snapshot testing of cargo and rustc's output. Don't have a good PR handy for showing Github's rendering of changes in the SVG (text, side-by-side, swiping) but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121877/files has newly added SVGs.

To see what is supported, see the screenshot in the docs: https://docs.rs/anstyle-svg/latest/anstyle_svg/

We strongly believe in Rust as a powerful language for building production-grade software, especially for systems like ours that run alongside Kubernetes.

The above Assert<{N % 2 == 1}> requires #![feature(generic_const_exprs)] and the nightly toolchain. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76560 for more info.