embassy VS rfcs

thanks. looked that up. for the curious: https://embassy.dev/

Running the Embassy RP2040 USB CDC ACM serial example takes about 5 seconds on a Pico.

https://github.com/embassy-rs/embassy/blob/main/examples/rp/...

Async solves different problems, you can, for instance, have just a single-threaded CPU and still have a nice API if you have async-await. It might not be so cool at a higher level as Go's approach of channels and threads, but it's cool in embedded, read this:

https://github.com/embassy-rs/embassy?tab=readme-ov-file#rus...

"Rust's async/await allows for unprecedently easy and efficient multitasking in embedded systems. Tasks get transformed at compile time into state machines that get run cooperatively. It requires no dynamic memory allocation, and runs on a single stack, so no per-task stack size tuning is required. It obsoletes the need for a traditional RTOS with kernel context switching, and is faster and smaller than one!"

I'm just toying with Raspberry Pi Pico and it's pretty nice.

Go and Rust have different use cases, the async-await is nice at a low level.

I have not yet dipped by toes in the Rust waters, but reading about the embassy project is actually what piqued my curiosity about using C++ coroutines in embedded. Are you familiar with the project or have you found it lacking?

I think I get the basics (shoutout to the Rust Embedded Working Group!), and I've started looking for the stack I'd be using. I think Embassy is really amazing, as well as the work of the ESP team -- hats off.

> }

And this is how to do it using embassy, which is an async framework for embedded in rust:

https://github.com/embassy-rs/embassy/blob/main/examples/rp/...

> not good for embedded

embassy begs to differ

https://embassy.dev/

async/await is really just a syntax for building state machines in a way that resembles regular code. It's compiled down to the same code that you would write by hand anyway (early on it had some bloat in state size but I think it's all fixed now).

And embedded has a lot of state machines!

You can run multiple executors at different interrupt priority levels (with multiple tasks per executor), which allows tasks on the higher priority executor to interrupt other tasks. Here's an example https://github.com/embassy-rs/embassy/blob/main/examples/nrf...

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