cglue VS rfcs

Shameless plug - you may want to check out cglue, which lets you mix and match rust versions, and even implement plugins in other languages like C++: https://github.com/h33p/cglue

You can grab CGlue from my GitHub.

I honestly wouldn't say that much has changed during this year. I do see some progress on new libraries like xlang_abi, safer_ffi or cglue, but it's still too early to know, and existing ones like abi_stable move quite slowly.

You might wanna take a look at cglue: https://github.com/h33p/cglue

Importing Rust is the same process as you'd use to import a C library, but there's a lot of people actively invested in this area so there's likely already automated tooling of some sort. Google uses https://cxx.rs for automating C++ bindings to Rust libraries, and lately there's been experiments like cglue to automate C bindings.

I'm proud to announce one final CGlue release for this year, the highlight being ability to use layout_checks feature on non-git builds!

I have just added pre-generated headers, they are now on the repo. Yup, certainly not the cleanest, some whitespaces need fixing, but it wasn't the highest priority as it didn't affect functionality.

Depending on how big your API surface is (and how trait heavy it is), you may want to look into [shameless_plug] automatically generating it with cglue. That's what we did for memflow. [/shameless_plug] It's goals are not much different from abi_stable (in fact, rather a small subset of it focused on traits), but does create C-compatible code.

It seems like we are trying to solve roughly the same problems when it comes to loading plugins and keeping it all ABI safe. Might be worth checking out CGlue (full disclosure: it's my project). While I do not have async trait support, it would be a really interesting challenge to tackle. The ultimate goal for the project is to be a dead simple code generator that would even allow to write plugins in C/C++, and I currently have sweeping changes underway to get it there.

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