meta-rust
rfcs
Our great sponsors
| meta-rust | rfcs | |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 666 | |
| 196 | 5,685 | |
| 1.5% | 0.9% | |
| 7.4 | 9.7 | |
| 2 months ago | about 17 hours ago | |
| NASL | Markdown | |
| MIT 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.
meta-rust
-
Advice: i.MX8X in Rust?
No patching Rust, what I did end up patching (for the reasons in my previous comment), was the Yocto Rust support layer, meta-rust - Rust support is present in mainline, but it's relatively slow with updates, and we're, for now, based on Kirkstone
-
Is anyone actually stuck on an old version of Rust
We depend on https://github.com/meta-rust/meta-rust which doesn't get updated regularly.
rfcs
-
Ask HN: What April Fools jokes have you noticed this year?
RFC: Add large language models to Rust
- 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...