Home VS rfcs

Are you sure you want Microsoft in particular to step in? https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39

Indeed, by criteria of community drama, .NET is also too immature for use. See [1], as the conclusion of that.

[1]: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/40

Saying that outcry was about one tiny decision is like saying WW1 was because an Archduke got assassinated.

Microsoft's handling of .NET 's OSS community has been haphazard at best. Just a week or two prior to the 'dotnet watch' debacle, there were issues and concerns with the .NET Foundation that led to the Executive Director stepping down [0].

I bring this up, because in many cases the perception is that there is -still- lock in, just in a different fashion.

By that, I mean, if you Ask a typical .NET developer what they use, they'll probably say ASPNETCORE, EF Core, maybe you'll hear Hangfire, MediatR, RestSharp, or Dapper.

So, you've got a bunch of .NET devs that -only- know Microsoft technologies for the most part. Yeah there's some other stuff like MongoDb, Kafka, Redis, stuff like that, but It's not very frequent you hear about teams reaching out to other technologies.

It's very rare I hear people bring up Linq2Db, a beautiful* Micro-ORM that is best described as a type-safe, extensible SQL DSL. Or Websharper, a really-freaking-cool library that basically lets you transpile your C#/F# code into Javascript and/or Reactive HTML, complete with seamless server calls if you'd like.

You might run into some interesting things at different places. One shop I was at used MassTransit, which was kinda cool. I've wound up using Akka.NET a few times in the past, which has always been super fun.

The end result of this though, is the -perception- of what .NET Developers are like. And sometimes those perceptions are real. I remember the dev that felt Dapper was some sort of 'black magic' and would stick to writing DataReaders and or datatables by hand, and another that was so against the idea including Non-MS tech in a project that it wound up costing him his job; he insisted there was a way to get EF to do things in a performant way (answer: not sanely, and not easily the way the app was built on an arch level,) and refused to accept a PR that solved the problem with Dapper.

He wound up doing the thing I've seen a -lot- of .NET developers do; fight the Framework.

To be clear here, I'm not referring to the BCL. It's not always perfect (I'd love for an analogue to SSLEngine, please?), but it's -fine-. I'm referring to bits like ASPNETCORE, EFCore, SignalR, and Microsoft.Extensions.(DependencyInjection/Logging) where developers wind up getting in awkward tarpits around some weird edge case because of a business requirement or some other decision that, unfortunately, can't be undone.

Or are just plain 'well, that sounds sensible in theory' like "I would like to update N rows in an new status that are older than 1 month and set to overdue, and not have it be N update statements." Maybe EF does that now, but last I knew the answer was not really.

At my first 'Real' Dev job, we were a .NET shop, that often had to 'fight the framework' (it didn't help that we were on an Oracle Backend, which made -everything- more of a PITA before we discovered Dapper.) When the .NET guys hit one of these roadblocks, it would often take sprint after sprint of fighting to either have no solution, or have a solution that would render the app hard to maintain. The newer teams using Java? They didn't have those problems. We later heard they had 5 different ORM-ish libraries in use over there. At the time, a lot of the .NET devs kinda treated it as a sort of derision. 'hows somebody gonna understand it?'... But the Java teams delivered. It is also worth considering, maybe those were the best libraries to solve the problems that the app in question needed to deal with.

And that's kinda the 'mindset' that is a set of .NET developers that fit the stereotype; if it's not an app that fits their cookie-cutter world, they break down and can't understand it. In other words, they're afraid to step outside the box, which means they're less likely to think outside the box.

The typical 'litmus-test' of this type for me is a sliding scale based on their past/current experience with other languages and willingness to work with them.

* - I do some contribution work to Linq2Db, so my opinion may be a little biased.

[0] - https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39#

I've heard this so many times within the last 10 years, and it's always after they've done something really stupid. At least in the FOSS realm, regarding microsoft, people are just so naive it's laughable. Like here where everyone is responding by pretty much saying "oh, it seems I've signed my rights away. I sure hope Microsoft doesn't abuse this in the future" ... I stopped feeling bad after reading responses.

Part of the drama: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39 Many things before were on twitter.

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