comprehensive-rust VS dfdx

Thanks! We do include speaker notes on some pages (but not yet all[1]). We would love to expand this and PRs are very welcome for this :-)

I think videos will end up being made by someone other than me since I feel it takes too much effort when you don't have the right setup already. We have an issue and I'll update it as soon as I hear more about videos.[2]

[1]: https://github.com/google/comprehensive-rust/issues/1083

A bit more detail: we've been expanding our Rust training at Google over the last year. We've now had more than 500 Googlers go through Comprehensive Rust and they tell us that they really like it — also when we ask them again three months later :-)

The post is a huge Thank You! to the many people who have helped with the course, both inside and outside of Google. More than 30 Googlers (who already knew Rust) have picked up the course and taught it around the world.

People have used the material for [university classes](https://mo8it.com/blog/teaching-rust/) and there will soon be [online classes](https://twitter.com/mrtngslr/status/1696601520412783052) as well. I hope it will become a good resource for people to teach Rust in many different contexts!

Pull requests are always welcome, the whole thing is open source: https://github.com/google/comprehensive-rust/.

Yes, I would love to have more contributors to https://github.com/google/comprehensive-rust and https://github.com/google/mdbook-i18n-helpers!

That's done with a bit of JavaScript. It's not super elegant... I would love to have someone with current JavaScript skills improve it :D

I keep checking the progress on dfdx for this reason. It does what I (and, I assume from context, you) want: Provides static checking of tensor shapes. Which is fantastic. Not quite as much inference as I'd like but I love getting compile-time errors that I forgot to transpose before a matmul.

It depends on the generic_const_exprs feature which is still, to quote, "highly experimental":

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76560

Definitely not for production use, but it gives a flavor for where things can head in the medium term, and it's .. it's nice. You could imagine future type support allowing even more inference for some intermediate shapes, of course, but even what it has now is really nice. Like this cute little convnet example:

https://github.com/coreylowman/dfdx/blob/main/examples/night...

And for transformers, it's really early days for dfdx, but it's a library that aims to sit basically at the Pytorch level of abstraction, that the difference is it's not just coded in Rust, but it follows the Rust-y/functional-y philosophy of "if it compiles it runs".

Wow that is super interesting. I actually tried to use GATs at first to be generic over shapes, but I couldn't do it, I'm sure it would be possible in the future though. There is this library dfdx that does something similar to what you mentioned, but it feels a little clumsy to me.

Awesome, I added an issue here https://github.com/coreylowman/dfdx/issues/597. We can discuss more there! The first step will just be adding the device and implementing tensor creation methods for it.

The next release of dfdx includes a CUDA device and implements many ops. The same dev created a new crate, cudarc, for a wrapper around CUDA toolkit.

A question I have is: what are the philosophical/design differences with dfdx? As someone who's played around with dfdx and only skimmed the README of burn, it seems like dfdx leans into Rust's type system/type inference for compile time checking of as much as is possible to check at compile time. I wonder if you've gotten a chance to look at dfdx and would like to outline what you think the differences are. Thanks!