proposal VS too-many-lists

Compare proposal vs too-many-lists and see what are their differences.

proposal

Go Project Design Documents (by golang)

too-many-lists

Learn Rust by writing Entirely Too Many linked lists (by rust-unofficial)
Our great sponsors
  • InfluxDB - Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale
  • WorkOS - The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS
  • SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews
proposal too-many-lists
46 219
3,276 2,987
0.5% 1.9%
4.4 0.0
13 days ago 11 days ago
Go Rust
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License MIT License
The number of mentions indicates the total number of mentions that we've tracked plus the number of user suggested alternatives.
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.

proposal

Posts with mentions or reviews of proposal. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects. The last one was on 2023-10-20.
  • Does Go Have Subtyping?
    3 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 20 Oct 2023
    The conclusion is pretty weird to me.

    Go does rely on monomorphization for generics, just like C++ and Rust. The only difference is that this is an implementation detail, so Go can group multiple monomorphizations without worrying about anything else [1]. This form of hybrid monomorphization is being increasingly common, GHC does that and Rust is also trying to do so [2], so nothing special for Go here.

    On the other hand, explaining variance as a lifted polymorphism is---while not incorrect per se---also weird in part because a lack of variance is at worst just an annoyance. You can always make an adopter to unify heterogeneous types. Rust calls it `Box`, Go happens to call it an interface type instead. Both languages even do not allow heterogeneous concrete (or runtime) types in a single slice! So variance has no use in both languages because no concrete types are eligible for variance anyway.

    I think the conclusion got weird because the term "subtyping" is being misused. Subtyping, in the broadest sense, is just a non-trivial type relation. Many languages thus have a multiple notion of subtyping, often (almost) identical to each other but sometimes not. Go in particular has a lot of them, and even some relation like "T implements U" is a straightforward record subtyping. It is no surprise that the non-uniform value representation has the largest influence, and only monomorphization schemes and hetero-to-homogeneous adapters vary in this particular group.

    [1] https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generi...

    [2] https://rust-lang.github.io/compiler-team/working-groups/pol...

  • Backward Compatibility, Go 1.21, and Go 2
    6 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 14 Aug 2023
    > I wonder: why not go further and say "there will never be a Go 2" in order to eliminate ambiguity about this?

    They did, five years ago. Albeit with an “if”.

    https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/d661ed19a203000b7c54...

    > If the above process works as planned, then in an important sense there never will be a Go 2. Or, to put it a different way, we will slowly transition to new language and library features. We could at any point during the transition decide that now we are Go 2, which might be good marketing. Or we could just skip it (there has never been a C 2.0, why have a Go 2.0?).

    > Popular languages like C, C++, and Java never have a version 2. In effect, they are always at version 1.N, although they use different names for that state. I believe that we should emulate them. In truth, a Go 2 in the full sense of the word, in the sense of an incompatible new version of the language or core libraries, would not be a good option for our users. A real Go 2 would, perhaps unsurprisingly, be harmful.

    6 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 14 Aug 2023
  • Why Turborepo is migrating from Go to Rust – Vercel
    7 projects | /r/golang | 8 Mar 2023
    Go Team wanted generics since the start. It was always a problem implementing them without severely hurting compile time and creating compilation bloat. Rust chose to ignore this problem, by relying on LLVM backend for optimizations and dead code elimination.
  • Major standard library changes in Go 1.20
    5 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 16 Jan 2023
    As far as I can tell, the consensus for generics was "it will happen, but we really want to get this right, and it's taking time."

    I know some people did the knee-jerk attacks like "Go sucks, it should have had generics long ago" or "Go is fine, it doesn't need generics". I don't think we ever needed to take those attitudes seriously.

    > Will error handling be overhauled or not?

    Error handling is a thorny issue. It's the biggest complaint people have about Go, but I don't think that exceptions are obviously better, and the discriminated unions that power errors in Rust and some other languages are conspicuously absent from Go. So you end up with a bunch of different proposals for Go error handling that are either too radical or little more than syntactic sugar. The syntactic sugar proposals leave much to be desired. It looks like people are slowly grinding through these proposals until one is found with the right balance to it.

    I honestly don't know what kind of changes to error handling would appear in Go 2 if/when it lands, and I think the only reasonable answer right now is "wait and find out". You can see a more reasonable proposal here:

    https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/go2dra...

    Characterizing it as a "lack of vision" does not seem fair here--I started using Rust back in the days when boxed pointers had ~ on them, and it seemed like it took Rust a lot of iterations to get to the current design. Which is fine. I am also never quite sure what is going to get added to future versions of C#.

    I am also not quite sure why Go gets so much hate on Hacker News--as far as I can tell, people have more or less given up on criticizing Java and C# (it's not like they've ossified), and C++ is enough of a dumpster fire that it seems gauche to point it out.

  • What's the status of the various "Go 2" proposals?
    2 projects | /r/golang | 15 Nov 2022
    As it says on that page - those were not proposals. They were draft ideas to get feedback on. You can see the list of proposals in this repository: https://github.com/golang/proposal
  • An alternative memory limiter for Go based on GC tuning and request throttling
    2 projects | /r/golang | 5 Oct 2022
    Approximately a year ago we faced with a necessity of limiting Go runtime memory consumption and started work on our own memory limiter. At the same time, Michael Knyszek published his well-known proposal. Now we have our own implementation quite similar to what has been released in 1.18, but there are two key differences:
  • Shaving 40% off Google’s B-Tree Implementation with Go Generics
    2 projects | /r/golang | 7 Aug 2022
  • I did something evil
    8 projects | /r/golang | 24 Jun 2022
    They actually didn't.
  • On a potential "Partial Monomorphization"
    2 projects | /r/ProgrammingLanguages | 14 Jun 2022
    Also take a look at https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generics-implementation-gcshape.md. This is a hybrid approach (like the one you're talking about) the Go compiler takes for its generics implementation. It uses GC allocation size classes ("shapes") to figure out how to group types that need to be monomorphized.

too-many-lists

Posts with mentions or reviews of too-many-lists. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects. The last one was on 2024-02-19.
  • Towards memory safety with ownership checks for C
    3 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 19 Feb 2024
    You seem to have a preset opinion, and I'm not sure you are interested in re-evaluating it. So this is not written to change your mind.

    I've developed production code in C, C++, Rust, and several other languages. And while like pretty much everything, there are situations where it's not a good fit, I find that the solutions tend to be the most robust and require the least post release debugging in Rust. That's my personal experience. It's not hard data. And yes occasionally it's annoying to please the compiler, and if there were no trait constraints or borrow rules, those instances would be easier. But way more often in my experience the compiler complained because my initial solution had problems I didn't realize before. So for me, these situations have been about going from building it the way I wanted to -> compiler tells me I didn't consider an edge case -> changing the implementation and or design to account for that edge case. Also using one example, where is Rust is notoriously hard and or un-ergonomic to use, and dismissing the entire language seems premature to me. For those that insist on learning Rust by implementing a linked list there is https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/.

  • Command Line Rust is a great book
    4 projects | /r/rust | 8 Dec 2023
    Advent of Code was okay until I encounterd a problem that required a graph, tree or linked list to solve, where I hit a wall. Most coding exercises are similar--those requiring arrays and hashmaps and sets are okay, but complex data structures are a PITA. (There is an online course dedicated to linked lists in Rust but I couldn't grok it either). IMO you should simply skip problems that you can't solve with your current knowledge level and move on.
  • [Media] I'm comparing writing a double-linked list in C++ vs with Rust. The Rust implementation looks substantially more complex. Is this a bad example? (URL in the caption)
    6 projects | /r/rust | 7 Dec 2023
    I feel obligated to point to the original cannon literature: https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/
    6 projects | /r/rust | 7 Dec 2023
    Others have mentioned "Rust with Entirely Too Many Linked Lists" already, and as the name implies it covers the subject exhaustively.
    6 projects | /r/rust | 7 Dec 2023
    you can find Learning Rust with Entirely Too Many Linked Lists over here.
    6 projects | /r/rust | 7 Dec 2023
    You really need to work through the Rust book on too many linked lists, but let me see if I can give you a quick summary.
  • Need review on my `remove()` implementation for singly linked lists
    2 projects | /r/rust | 29 Nov 2023
    I started learning Rust and like how the compiler is fussy about things. My plan was to implement the data structures I knew, but I got stuck at the singly linked list's remove() method. I've read the book as well, but I have no clue how to simplify this further:
  • Factor is faster than Zig
    11 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 10 Nov 2023
    My impression from the article is that Zig provides several different hashtables and not all of them are broken in this way.

    This reminds me of Aria's comment in her Rust tutorial https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/ about failing to kill LinkedList. One philosophy (and the one Rust chose) for a stdlib is that this is only where things should live when they're so commonly needed that essentially everybody needs them either directly or to talk about. So, HashTable is needed by so much otherwise unrelated software that qualifies, BloomFilter, while it's real useful for some people, not so much. Aria cleaned out Rust's set of standard library containers before Rust 1.0, trying to keep only those most people would need. LinkedList isn't a good general purpose data structure, but, it was too popular and Aria was not able to remove it.

    Having multiple hash tables feels like a win (they're optimized for different purposes) but may cost too much in terms of the necessary testing to ensure they all hit the quality you want.

  • Was Rust Worth It?
    18 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 25 Oct 2023
    > Cyclic references can be dealt with runtime safety checks too - like Rc and Weak.

    Indeed. Starting out with code sprinkled with Rc, Weak, RefCell, etc is perfectly fine and performance will probably not be worse than in any other safe languages. And if you do this, Rust is pretty close to those languages in ease of use for what are otherwise complex topics in Rust.

    A good reference for different approaches is Learn Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/

  • What are some of projects to start with for a beginner in rust but experienced in programming (ex: C++, Go, python) ?
    3 projects | /r/rust | 31 May 2023

What are some alternatives?

When comparing proposal and too-many-lists you can also consider the following projects:

rust - Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.

Rustlings - :crab: Small exercises to get you used to reading and writing Rust code!

book - The Rust Programming Language

go - The Go programming language

CppCoreGuidelines - The C++ Core Guidelines are a set of tried-and-true guidelines, rules, and best practices about coding in C++

easy_rust - Rust explained using easy English

x11rb - X11 bindings for the rust programming language, similar to xcb being the X11 C bindings

patterns - A catalogue of Rust design patterns, anti-patterns and idioms

miri - An interpreter for Rust's mid-level intermediate representation

rust-memory-container-cs - Rust Memory Container Cheat-sheet

vscode-gremlins - Gremlins tracker for Visual Studio Code: reveals invisible whitespace and other annoying characters

Clippy - A bunch of lints to catch common mistakes and improve your Rust code. Book: https://doc.rust-lang.org/clippy/