cargo-script-mvs VS rfcs

The eRFC was intentionally light on details so the Pre-RFC / IRLO thread and the demo best reflect what we hope to accomplish which are pretty detailed as-is.

> A) is easy to write one off scripts that do a job fast, with minimal thinking and effort. I am thinking of Python and Ruby. For me I can write code with high velocity in these languages.

Once I wrap up some other projects, I plan to explore this space a little bit within Rust.

imo the biggest bang for the buck is just having good `#!` support. Probably mid-year I expect to have a Pre-RFC up for single-file cargo packages. See https://github.com/epage/cargo-script-mvs/discussions/15.

A bigger effort is a batteries included, non-zero cost stdlib. I've started writing up my thoughts at https://github.com/ergo-rs/ergo.

For more background on why I think these are important, see https://epage.github.io/blog/2021/09/learning-rust/.

Would love feedback on these ideas and other ways to make Rust easy to use without sacrificing what makes Rust it is.

This is something I'm interested. Every time I write a bash or Python script, I think "why didn't I do this in Rust?". The first barrier is in the same line as your thoughts which is why I've been investigating the various cargo-script spin-offs and working towards an MVP for a Pre-RFC.

Something I've been thinking a lot about for Rust is what can and should a REPL experience be for a compiled language (ie what are reasonable compromises).

There seem to be two repls that haven't gotten much traction:

- https://github.com/google/evcxr/blob/main/evcxr_repl/README....

- https://github.com/sigmaSd/IRust

There have been little and big nits that have held me back from wanting to push these further, including

- Bad defaults (having to opt-in to panic handling)

- Command syntax feeling out of place and likely not beginner friendly

- Limits on variable preservation

- Lack of introspection (at least irust as `:type`)

So far I've been punting on wanting to improve this area by instead focusing on polishing up a rust script solution in the hopes of getting it merged: https://github.com/epage/cargo-script-mvs

rust-script is the most up-to-date version I could find. See https://github.com/epage/cargo-script-mvs/discussions/15

cargo-script has been forked or reimplemented several times.

cargo-script: I've done some initial analysis and recorded my thoughts on what cargo-script in Rust should look like. If people are interested in this or other individual / company on-boarding improvements, I'd love to talk!

Fully agree with this though I also feel there is room for experimentation and improvement in this area. I've previously blogged on this and have started researching cargo-script. Hopefully later I'll get to my standard-adjacent library.

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