argparse-rosetta-rs VS libs-team

It's clap and bpaf nowdays from fully featured ones. https://github.com/rosetta-rs/argparse-rosetta-rs

"not enough arguments" is nice, but what arguments do you need to pass? Use cli option parser such as bpaf or clap to deal with that kind of stuff - they will generate --help for you for example. https://github.com/rosetta-rs/argparse-rosetta-rs

We link to https://github.com/rosetta-rs/argparse-rosetta-rs for a full list. In such a competitive category, I don't think I can really recommend anything that doesn't handle non-utf8 arguments. I am considering adding bpaf to the recommendations in the "full" category, as they recently added this support.

Latest benchmark results Diff of clap v3 to clap v4

There's a nice overview made by /u/epage https://github.com/rosetta-rs/argparse-rosetta-rs/blob/main/docs/tradeoffs.md

We collaborated on the trade-offs document though that doesn't reflect the upcoming release which expands on the parser flexibility.

For parsing people tend to use a parser, some are listed here: https://github.com/rosetta-rs/argparse-rosetta-rs

I've updated argparse-rosetta-rs (formerly argparse-benchmarks-rs).

In rust, both release and debug builds use a release version of the runtime. The bugs the debug version is meant to catch are much more difficult to hit in rust (often but not always requiring unsafe). There isn't currently a feature to use the debug runtime in rust-- you can only change C to match for those debug builds.

Note that this has been discussed at length (and I do mean "at length") here: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/72

The Compiler Team, especially the Diagnostics Working Group that improves compiler error messages. The Libs Team, for work on the contents of the standard library documentation

See https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/72#issuecommen... for what I believe is an exhaustive list of possible ways of helping the situation.

The point is how the MSRV of a popular crate affects this dynamic for other crates. For an even more extreme example than time, see here for libc, with many heavyweights offering opinions: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/72

In case you haven't seen it yet, there is a very long discussion surrounding MSRV policy of the libc crate on rust-langs github repo. It's about a library, not a binary, but I think there's a lot of information in the thread, some of which will also apply to binaries.

Would you mind sharing your use case for being stuck with a particular version of Rust and why you can't upgrade? In particular with the libs team: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/72

Compare Stepanov's brilliant design of the STL to Rust's current reworking of their 'binary search api'. https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/81

Maybe 'memory safety' isn't the most important thing in this world. To me, writing software that does useful things in the simplest and most correct way is what matters. I get the feeling it's harder to understand my program's correctness with Rust (I mean algorithmic correctness). The C++ standard library has time and space complexity for every algorithm. I'm not seeing that's the case with Rust (correct me if I'm wrong).

There's also the pretty fundamental libc crate that wants to choose an MSRV policy and you can see the full discussion here: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/72