metalang99 VS rfcs

There are also other approaches. Macro variants making use of `__VA_ARGS__` would be probably the best trade-off. If you want a slightly more ergonomic syntax, something like Metalang99 [1] will help (and the author even wrote a post about this exact subject [2]). Codegen is another option which may work better than other options depending on the situation and exact implementation strategy. And there is always the Reflection TS [3], which may or may not be incorporated to C++26...

[1] https://github.com/Hirrolot/metalang99

[2] https://hirrolot.github.io/posts/pretty-printable-enumeratio...

[3] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/reflect

I went down the rabbit hole with C99 metaprogramming after reading through the list. For reference: https://metalang99.readthedocs.io/en/latest/, https://github.com/Hirrolot/metalang99

Honestly I have to disagree. There is nothing particularly special about what Super Template Tetris(STT) is doing.

At its core, template metaprogramming is just functional programming at compile time. STT is just a template and a runtime function which do the following:

1, take an input via compile time flag (the `-D DIRECTION`)

2. take a type input from an included header file containing the current state (`#include "current_game.h"`)

3. via functional programming, compute the results of a single step of the game.

4. specialise a single function using the results of step 3. this function prints the computed result to the screen and the computed game state to a file (`./current_game.h`).

5. gcc/clang exits. compilation is complete.

6. call the compiled binary.

7. the binary runs the specialised function and prints the outputs.

Sure it's fucky and you shouldn't do that in production but what sane individual is writing a piece of code that at runtime (after compiling) seeks out one of its own source files and modifies that file?

To prevent this from being possible you'd have to remove runtime file IO from the language. The other potential solutions wouldn't work:

1. Remove templates entirely: Still would be possible using https://github.com/Hirrolot/metalang99 which solely uses the preprocessor. Given that the pre-processor is literally just term substitution(a glorified copy/paste engine), if you removed that as well, you'd have to accept no form of metaprogramming at all.

2. Remove the ability to #include other files: Could still be done by doing everything inline. `#include` is just copy-paste anyways so it's more an abstraction than anything else to the compiler and preprocessor, it's basically the same as if all the code was pasted into the same file.

That leaves you with removing file IO. Without IO a programming language is basically useless, particularly as a systems programming language.

P.S. I wrote Metalang99 BTW.

Metalang99, a metalanguage for C99. Simple :)

Just wait until you see some other things by the same author, like https://github.com/Hirrolot/metalang99

I did get a few great responses there as well, though. One was a link to this impressive piece of work: https://github.com/Hirrolot/metalang99/blob/master/examples/lambda_calculus.c

Some preprocessor nonsense: https://github.com/Hirrolot/metalang99/blob/master/examples/lambda_calculus.c

RFC: Add large language models to Rust

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603

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.

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.

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...

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.

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