go-plugin VS rust

I am looking forward to a mix of both - I am hoping to add a concept called "operator" which would be a go-plugin [1], just like terraform providers, but build backends. So, someone would be able to, say, write a Slack plugin (in Go, or anything over RPC) which sends a message once a build is complete - like Jenkins/GitHub actions, or just scripts that we can reuse like GitLab CI through `modules`.

Perhaps a new registry where we can push custom modules and providers (operators in this case), I'm curious to know about if we have any existing implementations we could reuse for the registry.

[1]: https://github.com/hashicorp/go-plugin

I'd recommend looking into a different approach for plugins such as hashicorp/go-plugin (which uses multiple process PIDs and RPC communication between them) or traefik/yaegi (which implements a Go-compatible scripting language that can be interpreted at runtime and which still supports most Go modules).

You'll never fully protect your code from someone who's dead-set on reverse-engineering it, however, you can use https://github.com/hashicorp/go-plugin or a similar RPC technique, which will let you ship binary plugins and will also be less fragile and janky compared to something made with `-buildmode=plugin`.

The plugin system that hashicorp uses for all their projects works very well. It's essentially a local RPC implementation. https://github.com/hashicorp/go-plugin

can you try older go-plugin versions? The only major change in v1.4.4 was a bugfix for automtls. https://github.com/hashicorp/go-plugin/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md

Here's an example of someone citing a disagreement between CRT and shell32:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44650

This in addition to the Rust CVE mentioned elsewhere in the thread which was rooted in this issue:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/04/09/cve-2024-24576.html

Here are some quick programs to test contrasting approaches. I don't have examples of inputs where they parse differently on hand right now, but I know they exist. This was also a problem that was frequently discussed internally when I worked at MSFT.

    #include 

> instead of choosing a certain numbered version of the random library (if I remember correctly) I let cargo download the latest version which had a completely different API.

Yeah, they didn't follow the instructions and got burned. I still think that multiple things went wrong simultaneously for that experience. I wonder if more prevalent uses of `#[doc(alias = "name")]` being leveraged by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120730 (which now that I check only accounts for methods and not functions, I should get on that!) so that when changing APIs around people at least get a slightly better experience.

Almost fixed the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123325

Rust: A secure, efficient, and modern programming language (omitting ten thousand words). You can simply follow the installation instructions provided on the official website.

Recently did something similar in Rust but for generating SVGs. We've adopted it for snapshot testing of cargo and rustc's output. Don't have a good PR handy for showing Github's rendering of changes in the SVG (text, side-by-side, swiping) but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121877/files has newly added SVGs.

To see what is supported, see the screenshot in the docs: https://docs.rs/anstyle-svg/latest/anstyle_svg/

We strongly believe in Rust as a powerful language for building production-grade software, especially for systems like ours that run alongside Kubernetes.

The above Assert<{N % 2 == 1}> requires #![feature(generic_const_exprs)] and the nightly toolchain. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76560 for more info.