awesome-nim VS rfcs

Ones that have not been mentioned so far:

nlvm is an unofficial LLVM backend: https://github.com/arnetheduck/nlvm

npeg lets you write PEGs inline in almost normal PEG notation: https://github.com/zevv/npeg

futhark provides for much more automatic C interop: https://github.com/PMunch/futhark

nimpy allows calling Python code from Nim and vice versa: https://github.com/yglukhov/nimpy

questionable provides a lot of syntax sugar surrounding Option/Result types: https://github.com/codex-storage/questionable

ratel is a framework for embedded programming: https://github.com/PMunch/ratel

cps allows arbitrary procedure rewriting to continuation passing style: https://github.com/nim-works/cps

chronos is an alternative async/await backend: https://github.com/status-im/nim-chronos

zero-functional fixes some inefficiencies when chaining list operations: https://github.com/zero-functional/zero-functional

owlkettle is a declarative macro-oriented library for GTK: https://github.com/can-lehmann/owlkettle

A longer list can be found at https://github.com/ringabout/awesome-nim.

Hasznos cuccok hozzá: https://github.com/ringabout/awesome-nim

Ecosystem-wise - a brief subset of Nim packages:

    https://github.com/ringabout/awesome-nim

One can, of course, go much further than simply distinct number types: https://github.com/ringabout/awesome-nim#science

(Unchained seems maybe the most featureful of those units packages.)

> This is useful for compiler programmers, or maybe also those writing source code analyzers/optimizers, but is that it?

It is also useful for anyone wanting to implement language-level features as simple libraries. Someone else brought up Nim here: it's a great example of what can be done with metaprogramming (and in a non-Lisp language) as it intentionally sticks to a small-but-extendable-core design.

There's macro-based libraries that implement the following, with all the elegance of a compiler feature: traits, interfaces, classes, typeclasses, contracts, Result types, HTML (and other) DSLs, syntax sugar for a variety of things (notably anonymous functions `=>` and Option types `?`), pattern matching (now in the compiler), method cascading, async/await, and more that I'm forgetting.

https://github.com/ringabout/awesome-nim#language-features

Just under their table of contents, they say that "This list is fairly outdated." and point you to https://github.com/xflywind/awesome-nim - and that repo seems to have recent updates.

Thanks for making these, I actually had no idea these existed! I don't "need" them now but seeing these gives me ideas for projects and makes future things easier.

I wish discovery of community libraries was higher, I'm constantly discovering libraries that do amazing things 'hidden' away. I know there's https://nimble.directory/ and https://github.com/xflywind/awesome-nim but most of the time I end up using a search engine for something specific if I think of it.

awesome-nim: https://github.com/xflywind/awesome-nim

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