libc VS cxx

> I absolutely don't see how this is a problem with semver,

Strange to not see it. Semver promises to solve dependency hell. In the example everyone correctly followed the sevmver and the app is broken by a dependency hell issue.

> it is not the responsibility of semver to tell a language how packages should be isolated and loaded. That is a problem of a) the language and b) dependency resolution in the package manager.

So semver only works for "good" languages?

> Bundler, by design, does not allow the above, instead having a flat, consistent vision of dependencies.

Ok, so what happens with the app when packages managed by Bundler get fragmented by depending on an incompatible version of sub-dependency (commons-logging 1.1.1 vs 2.0.1 as in the example)?

Also note, even for languages and tooling supporting multiple library versions loaded side by side, there are scenarios where things break.

For example, the "libc apocalypse" situation in Rust https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/issues/547

Here after the "libc" module released a major version, the definition for the `void` C type in two versions of the lib are considered by the compiler as two different types, resulting in breakages everywhere around the library ecosystem.

There are also scenarios for dynamic languages / runtime errors.

> None of this is the responsibility of semver. In fact, semver would help the language provide tooling to detect that kind of "hey this instance is from foo-1.0 but you're trying to consume it in foo-2.0".

And what's next after it detected the dependency hell? It's too late and the person suffering is not in the position to fix it. You have to upgrade to "authentication 1.1.2" for security compliance, because the version 1.1.1 has known vulnerabilities. But that breaks the application, because the maintainer of the lower level dependency "commons-logging" follows semantic versioning.

The promise was to prevent dependency hell, not to detect it.

Quoting the ticket and reiterating the point of my first comment above:

Once again, the point of this ticket is to:

    Remove the false promise that SemVer solves dependency hell by simply increasing major version.

Even if coexistence of multiple library versions is supported, there are scenarios where things break.

For example, the "libc apocalypse" situation in Rust https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/issues/547

Here after the "libc" module released a major version, the definition for the `void` C type in two versions of the lib are considered by the compiler as two different types, resulting in breakages everywhere around the library ecosystem.

There are also scenarios for dynamic languages / runtime errors in statically typed languages.

My main problem with the current SemVer spec, is that it does not mention multiple lib versions problem, and promises the dependency hell issues can be solved simply by updating major version number. Thus encouraging to break backward compatibility freely.

Also note, it's not the case that SemVer is intended only for languages supporting multiple library versions. The SemVer is a product of Ruby community, and Ruby has a global namespace for classes and unable to have several versions of a lib simultaneously.

In 2000s they were breaking compatibility left and right, neglecting elementary compatibility practices. If you were working on an application, practically every time when you update dependencies, something would break.

So (in 2011 ?) they came out with this "manifesto" (Why such a big name? This scheme of versioning was well established in linkers and sonames of all Unix-like systems for decades - it goes back to at least 1987 paper "Shared Libraries in SunOS").

It's a good thing SemVer acknowledges finally that compatibility is a serious matter. Only that it's better to discourage compatibility breakages. An in cases when it's really needed (I agree such cases exists), there are things to take care of in addition to simply increase major version num.

The libc crate exposes system C APIs in Rust code, and is used by the compiler and standard library. It also does not contain any C code. See for yourself.

Ok, what if we are sure that our C code would use a given version of malloc/free only to allocate memory (are we ever sure about anything like that is out of the scope of the article)? Well, in this case we are brave enough to use libc crate in our rust code:

Port libc. I recommend using bindgen for this.

While looking at the libc crate and its build script, I don’t quite understand when or how the crate’s libc definitions link to the build target’s actual libc.

For what it's worth, there's been discussion of this not only for glibc on Linux but also for BSDs which take many more liberties with API and ABI compatibility to keep their technical debt low. I can't summarise the years of discussion here but I encourage anyone interested to read through https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/issues/570

In answer to what appears to be a misunderstanding about Rust:

> Its foreign function interface seems particularly poorly implemented. The official Rust documentation suggests the use of the external third-party libc library (called a 'crate' in Rust parlance) to provide the type definitions necessary to interface with C programs. As of the time of writing, this crate has had 95 releases. Contrast this with Ada’s Interfaces.C package, which was added the language in Ada 95 and hasn’t needed to change in any fundamental way since.

Rust's libc crate isn't third-party, it's first-party, developed by the Rust project itself: https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/ . It's also not just for "type definitions necessary to interface with C programs"; here's the first heading and first paragraph of its README:

"libc - Raw FFI bindings to platforms' system libraries"

libc provides all of the definitions necessary to easily interoperate with C code (or "C-like" code) on each of the platforms that Rust supports. This includes type definitions (e.g. c_int), constants (e.g. EINVAL) as well as function headers (e.g. malloc).

The fact that this library contains low-level type definitions for every platform that Rust supports explains why it's had more than one release: new platforms get added, platforms add new interfaces, and platforms change the definitions of existing interfaces.

> It lacks basic features necessary for the task, like bitfields, and data structure packing.

The latter is achieved via the built-in `repr(packed)` attribute (https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/other-reprs.html#reprpacke...) and the former is provided by the bitflags crate: https://crates.io/crates/bitflags (while unlike libc this does not live under the rust-lang org on Github, it does live under its own org which appears to be populated exclusively by Rust project team members).

It came up in this issue in the libc crate. The initializer for a static has to be const, which is why the issue submitter wanted it. He couldn't use lazy_static or once_cell, common patterns in Rust, since he was later using the static in a unix signal handler (which must be async signal safe).

There are cxx and autocxx, what else do you propose to do?

I would like to see a comparison of how this compares to Rust. In terms of interoperability it has Cxx (https://cxx.rs) to offer safe bindings to C++ but also has great support for Android, Linux and many other systems. You don't even need to hack together Windows bindings (as explained in the blog post) because Microsoft offers official bindings (https://crates.io/crates/windows). I'm not sure if I'd call it a superpower if any potential interoperability has to be written to be used (compared to it already being available). Or rather, in comparison to what is interoperability a Swift superpower? Certainly not C++ or C which can be used in a far wider set of targets.

We selected Qt as a cross-platform solution. The C++/Rust interface is the clunkiest and ugliest part of the application, and rather complex because some state is shared between several windows in the GUI and several threads in the backend, and any component might modify that state at any time, and updates have to be transmitted to the other components without introducing inconsistencies. Using cxx [1] helped a little, though.

The project began in 2020, and I'm not sure what I'd choose as a GUI framework today – definitely not Qt Widgets, though.

[1] https://cxx.rs/

If the build process for the C library isn't too involved I recommend using cxx bridge (https://cxx.rs/) and letting cargo handle the build and linking. cxx basically allows you to describe the bidirectional interface (although it sounds like you only need 1 direction, which is fine too) in Rust code and it provides a "good enough" API for compiling C code inside the build.rs file.

The tooling for the first kind -- calling Rust from another language -- is a bit less developed, and tends to rely on code generation that doesn't necessarily produce a natural C API. cbindgen, uniffi, cxx, and Diplomat all take this course.

I would like to utilize OMPL's functionality in Rust code, so I want to call into OMPL C++ code somehow in Rust. I've seen two (non-mutually-exclusive) options so far: - rust-cpp, which allows you to write C++ code in Rust within the cpp!() macro. - cxx, which allows you to define both sides of the FFI boundary manually (as opposed to bindgen's automatic generation).

I'm not sure how to do this in cxx; issues like https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx/issues/447 suggest that this isn't settled yet?

I use non-vendored dependencies for the Buck build in https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx.

There's also the cpp and cxx crates for doing C++/Rust interop, but they probably aren't appropriate to use in all cases. The C ABI is definitely the safest way to go unless you're really trying to marry Rust and C++ code bases, not just writing library bindings.

There's also cxx (can't vouch for it personally but it claims to make things a lot easier) https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx