inox2d VS csharplang

I'm writing Inox2D, which is kind of a rewrite of Inochi2D in Rust. The aim is to reach more use-cases such as web with WASM and even potentially embedded development, but at the very least an implementation in a low-level non-garbage-collected language.

Inox2D, an experimental native Rust implementation of Inochi2D.

inox2d - official experimental reimplementation of Inochi2D, an open-source alternative of Live2D for animating 2D puppets in various contexts such as games or vtubing. inox2d isn't really meant to be a replacement over the current implementation, but more of a complementary one that extends it's use-cases, for example embedded devices and web integration with WASM.

Hey, I'm working on inox2d which uses glow.

For example, I wouldn't want to separate this into multiple files, would make it harder to see where all the deserialization logic is.

For example, I'm working on Inox2D, a reimplementation of Inochi2D in Rust.

I absolutely get that. It was actually very clear in a project of mine. I work on inox2d which is a native implementation of Inochi2D in Rust (Inochi2D being a FOSS puppet animation system, like Live2D which is used by vtubers and light novel engines notably).

For example, on my Inox2D project, I was using serde to deserialize some JSON payload. But that came with some hacks I had to do, like have a temporary struct that gets converted to the final one because it wasn't possible to serialize it by itself, and add extra-dependencies to make the system extensible while also supporting external structures I used like Arena from the indextree crate.

You can find it at https://github.com/Inochi2D/inox2d. If you know stuff about OpenGL and low-level rendering in general I'd really appreciate some help as I myself am very new to this stuff.

Not exactly related to conversation but given that you mentioned (discriminated) unions, here are notes on recent design work:

https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2024...

https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2024...

Certain parts of Microsoft Learn are permissive, for example the .NET BCL documentation is Creative Commons Attribution: https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-api-docs as is ASP.NET Core: https://github.com/dotnet/AspNetCore.Docs (a good hint if documentation is permissively licensed and on GitHub is if there's an edit button at the top.)

The C# language specification is unfortunately a bit fuzzier: https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/discussions/4855

The updated unified C# language specification is CC, but it's still catching up to modern C#: https://github.com/dotnet/csharpstandard

No OP, but for example you still see the C# folks still struggling to add discriminated unions to the language because of complex interactions due to its too many features[1]. Virtual threads are easier to use than async/await is another example.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/113

For example, C# had a research fork called Spec# that had compile-time support for contracts, with keywords such as requires (for arguments) and ensures (for return values), all the way back in 2004. While still being discussed, it doesn't seem to be shipping any time soon.

Hi there. I'm the language designer who created the 'Collection Expression' design/specification: https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/5354

You can see the entire history of the proposal there. To answer you specific question, we went with `..` because that's what the language already uses for the complimentary 'pattern matching deconstruction' form for collection patterns.

In other words, you can already say this today:

    if (x is [var start, .. var middle, .. var end]) { ... }

You must specify concrete type.

There was a plan to have "natural type" so "var list = [1,2,3]" would be of type "List" but it was postponed to C# 13 (https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/5354#issuecommen...)

While C# currently lacks direct support for this kind of functionality, there's a glimmer of hope with an active proposal under discussion that aims to bring this feature to the language. This potential addition promises a future where C# can natively offer similar robust type narrowing.

Given few people anticipated ValueTuple and C# adding a more direct tuple syntax, I feel like it is only a matter of time before C# adds discriminated unions.

(There are multiple proposals tracking the idea. This seems the most comprehensive and "central": https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/7016)

I always liked list abbreviations in python, but I absolutely love Linq. I believe there is a feature proposal for C# 12, which makes collection initialization better imo.