bincode VS rfcs

Ermm... actually I meant something like this: playground, but then I realized it's basically (de)serialization, and I just found that we already have a crate for that: bincode.

One, figure out the bincode format (documented here: https://github.com/bincode-org/bincode/blob/trunk/docs/spec.md) and write your own parser. Maybe a one-off that specifically only handles this one data structure would be fairly straightforward.

Step 1: The Deserialize type requests data from the Deserializer with one of the deserialize_type methods. This gives it an opportunity to provide certain metadata about the type: structs provide a list of fields, enums provide a list of variants, tuples provide a length, etc. Some data formats (notably bincode) require this metadata to drive deserializing, as the wire format is not self-describing. Crucially, the Deserialize type also provides a visitor that is capable of receiving the requested data from the Deserializer.

Alternatively, give Bincode a try.

Like separate instructions? I was thinking if a instruction have unknown length I make sure I have some kind of header field that tells the data length of the instruction so receiver knows when next instruction starts. And I was planning on using Bincode with serde to serialize and dezerialize like structs and stuff.

Isn't this essentially bincode?

This is similar in practice to using abi_stable, and end-users will still receive compiled files, but your plugins will be sandboxed and a single build will work on all platforms. The downside is that it's a bit more work because WebAssembly's support for passing complex data types between the host and the WebAssembly code is in the preliminary stages, so you need to do something like using Serde to encode your data into something like Bincode or MessagePack (or JSON and friends) to hand it off between the host and the plugin.

What kind of access do you need to the data ? You should be able to make a safe api to the Vec class by iterating on in in chunks, and using a closure to translate data between u8 and other representations. ( f32, u32 has the fomr_ne_bytes() / to_ne_bytes() methods ) You could make a helper function that takes a format description ( i.e. "fffuucc" , and calculates the size of the chunk, and generates a closure for reading accessing the data, of the layout is completely dynamic. This closure could use an enum to wrap the different primitive types. ) Or if the layouts are known at compile time , you could use procedural macros to generate code for serializaion / deserialization inot the the [u8] , though https://crates.io/crates/bincode may already do that for you )

Apparently there's a lot of discussion going on about that (3 of the 4 open tickets on the bincode implementation are about it), for example this one.

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