crates.rs VS argparse-rosetta-rs

That's not an accurate characterization. I wrote a lot about my position here: https://gitlab.com/crates.rs/crates.rs/-/issues/121

I believe they're referring to this issue, if you want to take a look: https://gitlab.com/crates.rs/crates.rs/-/issues/81

Citation needed, that's a pretty bold claim. The site is open source (via link in footer) so any heuristics or algo decisions should be open to whatever level of scrutiny you wish.

Mostly this issue. I do agree that crypto is scammy, but the way this whole thing was handled really rubbed me the wrong way.

Well that's just the tip of the iceberg. Lib.rs can do whatever it wants, but I do find this to be a bit silly - and I'm not particularly pro-crypto, either.

It's clap and bpaf nowdays from fully featured ones. https://github.com/rosetta-rs/argparse-rosetta-rs

"not enough arguments" is nice, but what arguments do you need to pass? Use cli option parser such as bpaf or clap to deal with that kind of stuff - they will generate --help for you for example. https://github.com/rosetta-rs/argparse-rosetta-rs

We link to https://github.com/rosetta-rs/argparse-rosetta-rs for a full list. In such a competitive category, I don't think I can really recommend anything that doesn't handle non-utf8 arguments. I am considering adding bpaf to the recommendations in the "full" category, as they recently added this support.

Latest benchmark results Diff of clap v3 to clap v4

There's a nice overview made by /u/epage https://github.com/rosetta-rs/argparse-rosetta-rs/blob/main/docs/tradeoffs.md

We collaborated on the trade-offs document though that doesn't reflect the upcoming release which expands on the parser flexibility.

For parsing people tend to use a parser, some are listed here: https://github.com/rosetta-rs/argparse-rosetta-rs

I've updated argparse-rosetta-rs (formerly argparse-benchmarks-rs).