deno-puppeteer VS crater

In an ideal world, yes, but in reality Deno's permission model is quite hard to use so many libraries require disabling a lot of it, sometimes everything like puppeteer. Other example is the library I maintain: it requires --allow-net since you can't whitelist a domain and all its subdomains, just a domain.

import puppeteer from "https://deno.land/x/[email protected]/mod.ts"; const browser = await puppeteer.launch(); const page = await browser.newPage(); await page.goto("https://news.ycombinator.com", { waitUntil: "networkidle2", }); await page.pdf({ path: "hn.pdf", format: "A4" }); await browser.close();

I agree that semantics for that is complicated, but I think the adopting browser permission model is bad because browsers have per-site isolation but how Deno is going to do that for applications that require executing external binaries? Also, even if you would whitelist some binaries, there are Deno packages, such as deno-puppeteer, which don't list what permissions it requires, instead it instructs users to enable all permissions using -A. By the way, why just -A? Why not --unsafely-enable-all-permissions (like Chromium's --unsafely-treat-insecure-origin-as-secure)?

Maybe people forget about this permission system because either are not experienced with Deno or because they just slap -A on eveything. Some packages such as deno-puppeteer even put it in all examples without even adding a note about its risks.

yup, they reference it as an inspiration: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

it's probably impossible to automate an entire ecosystem, and there is value to enabling a tighter integration within a project ecosystem (a subset of the language ecosystem).

Rather than hypothesising about an imagined tool you could look at the actual tool which of course is in Rust's source code repo: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

> new proposed C++ changes - are checked against only easily and "well-known" accessible package.

Now that I have, so to say, shown you mine, lets see yours. Where is the tool to perform these checks in C++?

The "break things" part of "move fast" is not essential, Rust cares so much about breakage they literally compile and run the tests for every crate on crates.io and github using a tool called Crater. They do this just to test changes, even for stuff thats documented to be unstable, because thats just courtesy. And tooling makes it trivial to switch between Rust versions.

The bot's named Crater if you want to look into it more.

See https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

Rust compiler developers use a tool called Crater to test potentially breaking compiler changes on all crates (Rust's name for libraries) uploaded to the official repository. If plugin stability is the issue, maybe a solution along these lines would be better than merging these plugins to Neovim's core?

https://github.com/rust-lang/crater is the bot they use to test proposed compiler/stdlib changes against slices of the crates.io library up to and including "all of it".

The tool you're referring to is called Crater: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater.

I'm pretty certain this isn't actually true. You should look at the editions, etc. Rust also has an insane guarantee which I am certain C/C++ don't offer: It rebuilds its entire library ecosystem each time it ships to make sure nothing breaks (https://crater.rust-lang.org). I've never seen an instance were old code didn't compile on a new compiler. Rust isn't forwards compatible (new code compiles on an old compiler) of course, but what is?