goformat
rfcs
goformat | rfcs | |
---|---|---|
7 | 666 | |
20 | 5,711 | |
- | 0.9% | |
0.0 | 9.8 | |
almost 6 years ago | 2 days ago | |
Go | Markdown | |
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
goformat
-
Minimalist Rust formatter as an alternative to rustfmt?
Likewise, gofmt implementing what you argue for resulted in the creation of goformat. There's a limit to how much you can force people on these things and, more importantly, there are formatting decisions which are more than mere bikeshedding in the eyes of the programmers to the point where they consider it more productive to maintain the formatting by hand if that's what it takes.
-
Go is better than Rust (for networked server side applications meant for scale)?
I'm the guy who would only run rustfmt once every week or so, when my codebase was in a clean state where I could use git gui to cherry-pick the changes that were in line with my stubborn insistence on my own style and revert the rest. I'm also the guy who would have considered writing goformat if someone else didn't.
-
Why is rust so pedantic about code formatting and style?
Enough people disagree with that for goformat to exist.
-
rustfmt opt-in instead of opt-out
Same. I used to insist on cargo +nightly rustfmt and a massive stable of "I don't have a portrait-oriented monitor" rustfmt.toml tweaks which I'd only apply when I have a clean git gui on hand to cherry-pick away unwanted changes, but I've mellowed out and the rustfmt handling of things like assert! has evolved so, now, I just put use_small_heuristics = "Max" in my rustfmt.toml as an analogue to the people who choose goformat over gofmt.
-
Need a line-preserving gofmt tool
anyways, regardless of what I think, perhaps this library could help? Or at least be a good starting point to build your own: https://github.com/mbenkmann/goformat
-
What do you NOT like about Rust?
You'd prefer that people like me follow the road the Go ecosystem did and write goformat as a replacement for gofmt or just continue to hand-format everything?
-
Why most rustfmt options are still unstable?
Because Go syntax is ridiculously simple, there's not much room for opinion. And even considering that, there is already an alternative gofmt with custom options.
rfcs
-
Ask HN: What April Fools jokes have you noticed this year?
RFC: Add large language models to Rust
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603
- Rust to add large language models to the standard library
-
Why does Rust choose not to provide `for` comprehensions?
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.
- Coroutines in C
-
Uv: Python Packaging in Rust
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.
- RFC: Rust Has Provenance
-
The bane of my existence: Supporting both async and sync code in Rust
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...
-
Why stdout is faster than stderr?
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.
- Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong
-
Ask HN: What's the fastest programming language with a large standard library?
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
What are some alternatives?
serenity - A Rust library for the Discord API.
rust - Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
project-error-handling - Error handling project group
bubblewrap - Low-level unprivileged sandboxing tool used by Flatpak and similar projects
prettier-plugin-rust - Prettier Rust is an opinionated code formatter that autocorrects bad syntax.
crates.io - The Rust package registry
rustfmt - Format Rust code
polonius - Defines the Rust borrow checker.
rust-cpython - Rust <-> Python bindings
Rust-for-Linux - Adding support for the Rust language to the Linux kernel.
PyO3 - Rust bindings for the Python interpreter
rust-gc - Simple tracing (mark and sweep) garbage collector for Rust