diesel_async VS rfcs

So I want to use diesel_async in my web backend.

The already linked discussion from last time already contains a lot of information about this. Diesel itself does not provide async operations and that will likely remain that way for a foreseeable future. At least my preferred solution is to keep async support in a separate crate. A prototype for this is currently available here. Keep in mind that this is not released yet, so there might be bugs everywhere. I plan to cut a first release of this crate after the final release of diesel 2.0, which means hopefully soon. As for ETA's: I generally do not give any ETA's for releases, as this is currently a free time project for me.

So, diesel is an ORM that tries to take full advantage of rust's typing expressivity to allow for statically checked, and fast, queries. I absolutely loved it when trying it out the first time.

i don't see why you or anyone else would consider it too big of an issue that Diesel doesn't have async. For those who really want async diesel right now, the author already released diesel_async as a stop-gap solution, but even without that there's nothing wrong with using spawn_blocking. It feels worse than it really is to use blocking thread pools; until io_uring is a thing, there's no real getting around the necessity of threads being blocked for I/O and so adding async to the mix doesn't magically make things faster.

As for now there is an prototype available here. It's technically feature complete, but depends on a unpublished diesel version + has some remaining bugs with certain mysql versions. If that is fixed I will likely publish a first alpha version officially. That can take same time because that's a second large project that needs maintenance time beside diesel itself and that's quite a lot to do in my free time. You can support this work by sponsoring me on github

Async support for diesel currently lives in a separate repository as there are language level blocking issues for publishing a version of this crate where we could commit to a stable release at all. See the corresponding diesel issue for details.

https://github.com/weiznich/diesel_async tho'.

Weiznich (the maintainer of Diesel) has created an experimental async version of the diesel Connection and RunQueryDsl traits, which should help with ease-of-use for Diesel within async contexts. It is not yet published on crates, but you can find it here: https://github.com/weiznich/diesel_async

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