neuronika VS futures-rs

Also perhaps comparing to Neuronika.

how does it compare with https://github.com/spearow/juice, https://github.com/neuronika/neuronika and https://github.com/spearow/juice?

Check where and how this struct is used. https://github.com/neuronika/neuronika/blob/variable-rework/neuronika-variable/src/history.rs

Also you can take a look at neuronika.

There is also https://github.com/neuronika/neuronika

I have a question: as the maintainer of [neuronika](https://github.com/neuronika/neuronika), a crate that offers dynamic neural network and auto-differentiation with dynamic graphs, I'm looking at a future possible feature for such framework consisting in the possibility of compiling models, getting thus rid of the "dynamic" part, which is not always needed. This would speed the inference and training times quite a bit.

If you like autograd you will love neuronika

After reading most of the book, I wanted to get my hands dirty. My initial idea was to build a small machine learning framework but I deemed it to be too difficult if not impossible for me at the time. (Now, neuronika would have something to say). When gathering the bibliography for my thesis, I recalled to have stumbled upon a particular algorithm, t-SNE, whom I liked very much. I found the idea behind it to be very clever and elegant (t-SNE it's still one of my favorite algorithms, together with backprop and SOM, I find manifold learning fascinating in general). "So be it", I said, and I began writing a mess of a code, that was basically a translation of the C++ implementation. Boy was it bad.

So this is actually better than true fairness (true fairness would lead to deadlock if a sender is forgotten). It is a pity that the there does not seem to be resources that document this design. There is this old thread where Carl provides some background, but I found it personally a bit hard to follow.

Is this still true after it switched to using FuturesOrdered?

Done.

You can use Streams, which are the async version of Iterators; They aren't stable yet, so you'll have to use a crate such as futures.

futures

For traits, like AsyncRead and AsyncWrite, go with the futures crate.

Here is the PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/futures-rs/pull/2551

Yield = wake the `waker_ref`. Avoiding the yield would be clone().wake().

That said, "poll immediately" isn't actually a thing nor was it ever a thing except in incorrect implementations.

Rust lacks an implementation of ReactiveX. futures/futures-signals seems to be the the ecosystem equivalent but I'm sure there'd be a lot of interest in an actual implementation.

The opposite problem exists as well. Many types are actually unwind safe, but do not get the autotrait. In that case authors would have to manually declare them UnwindSafe. Because this is rarely done, having an API with a trait bound T: UnwindSafe is rarely viable in terms of ergonomics. It now obliges client code to wrap all calls to your API in AssertUnwindSafe which, if they use types from third party libraries, obliges them to assert this is fine. example

Also, we plan to give users more control in the future. See https://github.com/rust-lang/futures-rs/issues/2207, https://github.com/rust-lang/futures-rs/issues/2295, etc. for this