generational-arena VS go

In my experience it is often easier to use indexes instead of copying Rc's. If you want to mutate the graph, then look in to slab and generational-arena

Regarding ECS: yes, but in a deflationary sense. The game has entities, stored in something very similar to GenerationalArena, and it has "systems", which are just functions that operate on these entities. The components themselves are just fields of the Entity megastruct. Having an ECS in the narrow sense doesn't really make a lot of sense for this game, because a lot of its rules are dependent on each other, and there's very little chance to extract parallelism. Also, even the current largest levels have less than 10k entities, so simulation performance is not a bottleneck yet.

If you cannot inplace construct the slice-dst on heap and your slice is too large to be copied, then I think there are two solutions: - Using Box>, this adds another level of indirection but avoids the copying - Use an arena like slotmap, slab, generational_arena or concurrent_arena to store the Box<[u8]>. It still needs heap allocation, but it allocates in chunks, thus less fragmentation and performs better.

I think this is less of a good fit though: the word "arena" doesn't imply iteration is possible to me. I think arenas also conventionally will reuse previously-released handles (unless you implement akin to a generational arena), so the term might be a bit misleading in that regard.

Might wanna check out https://github.com/fitzgen/generational-arena / https://github.com/ArnaudValensi/vec-tree/blob/master/tests/tests.rs.

This is far from the only arena allocator written in Rust.

From the same author, a zero-unsafe arena allocator: https://github.com/fitzgen/generational-arena

There are many, many arena implementations available with varying characteristics. It's disingenuous to act like Rust requires the author of an arena library to write "unsafe" everywhere.

If someone wants to adapt it to create computergames, then it would probably be useful to find a way to introduce generational generational indexes

Now, I’m not going to use C++ again; I left that chapter years ago, and it’s not going to happen. C++ isn’t memory safe and easy to use and would require extended time for developers to adapt. Rust is the new kid on the block, but I’ve heard mixed opinions about its developer experience, and there aren’t many libraries around it yet. LLRD is too new for my taste, but **Go** caught my attention.

Generative AI development has been democratised, thanks to powerful Machine Learning models (specifically Large Language Models such as Claude, Meta's LLama 2, etc.) being exposed by managed platforms/services as API calls. This frees developers from the infrastructure concerns and lets them focus on the core business problems. This also means that developers are free to use the programming language best suited for their solution. Python has typically been the go-to language when it comes to AI/ML solutions, but there is more flexibility in this area. In this post you will see how to leverage the Go programming language to use Vector Databases and techniques such as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) with langchaingo. If you are a Go developer who wants to how to build learn generative AI applications, you are in the right place!

net/http: add methods and path variables to ServeMux patterns Discussion about ServeMux enhancements

Make sure you have Go installed https://go.dev/.

The Go Programming Language

When Go first shipped, it was already well-documented that the only stable ABI on some platforms was via dynamic libraries (such as libc) provided by said platforms. Go knowingly and deliberately ignored this on the assumption that they can get away with it. And then this happened:

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/16606

If that's not "getting burned", I don't know what is. "Trying to provide a nice feature" is an excuse, and it can be argued that it is a valid one, but nevertheless they knew that they were using an unstable ABI that could be pulled out from under them at any moment, and decided that it's worth the risk. I don't see what that has to do with "not being as broadly compatible as they had hoped", since it was all known well in advance.

Sadly, I think that is indeed radically different from Go’s design. Go lacks anything like sum types, and proposals to add them to the language have revealed deep issues that have stalled any development. See https://github.com/golang/go/issues/57644

I've been writing a lot about Go and gRPC lately: