proc-macro-workshop VS rfcs

Tangentially, the proc macro workshop walks through building a derive macro implementing a builder pattern. From experience, I can tell I couldn't ever write proc macros just by reading the manual, going through it is really helpful https://github.com/dtolnay/proc-macro-workshop/blob/master/README.md

I am working on the proc macro workshop and am a little stuck on the builder portion of the workshop. Step 08-unrecognized-attributes wants you to handle the car where the field modifier has a misspelled portion (eac instead of each)

I would very much second the suggestion to do David Tolnay’s Proc Macro Workshop if you want to start understanding how to write them. I’d been writing Rust for years but always kind of avoided proc macros.

When I had a need for them, I went through only the first section of the workshop and everything clicked. You can just do the derive macro section and all the strange and scary-looking macro syntax will make sense. I realized that there is only a bit of extra syntax but it’s used very often so it can seem a little overwhelming when reading macro code.

https://github.com/dtolnay/proc-macro-workshop

Another good one imo is the proc-macro-workshop.

Don't be afraid of proc macros and derive macros, they rule. Study the basic examples. Crates like darling and resources like David Tolnay's workshop will help. Write derives for your simpler traits and impress your colleagues.

Regarding 4, I think that macros are an interesting intermediate/advanced topic. I personally loved the material from https://github.com/dtolnay/proc-macro-workshop

It took me a while to get anything done. My mistake : I came accross the procedural macros workshop several times, and every time I dismissed it, thinking - meh I'll just hack together exactly what I need and move on. Then finally I figured there is no way around it. The builder exercise sounds boring but it covers the topic pretty well. And then I went on to the debug one and from there was able to build the proc macro I wanted.

Hey! While researching, I found this: https://github.com/dtolnay/proc-macro-workshop

Rust Latam: procedural macros workshop - David Tolnay

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