analysis VS crater

> that it cannot all be found.

Do you think you can find all public Rust code?

Like, if I'm teaching a Rust course, and put a hello-world.rs program on my department's public GitLab instance, under an MIT license, do you think I should also put that on GitHub? And register it as a crate?

If I'm 12 years old, how should I publish my source code when GitHub's terms of service don't allow that?

> the lack of any central resource that can be consulted.

And you say that like it's a good thing.

You want everything to be centralized on GitHub? If so, you want to force all research software developers to agree to the GitHub's terms, including those who are ardent free software advocates. You also prevent 12 years olds from publishing their Rust source code.

Or, do you also allow BitBucket [1], and GitLab [2]?

[1] https://bitbucket.org/project_samar/samar_lite/src/master/ contains two Rust programs, neither on crates.io

[2] https://gitlab.com/rouault-team-public/analysis/umaprs

What about department instances of GitLab? [3]

https://gitlab.anu.edu.au/mu/mu-impl-fast/-/tree/rtmu-dev

It really doesn't seem like it's all that easy to find all publicly available Rust code.

yup, they reference it as an inspiration: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

it's probably impossible to automate an entire ecosystem, and there is value to enabling a tighter integration within a project ecosystem (a subset of the language ecosystem).

Rather than hypothesising about an imagined tool you could look at the actual tool which of course is in Rust's source code repo: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

> new proposed C++ changes - are checked against only easily and "well-known" accessible package.

Now that I have, so to say, shown you mine, lets see yours. Where is the tool to perform these checks in C++?

The "break things" part of "move fast" is not essential, Rust cares so much about breakage they literally compile and run the tests for every crate on crates.io and github using a tool called Crater. They do this just to test changes, even for stuff thats documented to be unstable, because thats just courtesy. And tooling makes it trivial to switch between Rust versions.

The bot's named Crater if you want to look into it more.

See https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

Rust compiler developers use a tool called Crater to test potentially breaking compiler changes on all crates (Rust's name for libraries) uploaded to the official repository. If plugin stability is the issue, maybe a solution along these lines would be better than merging these plugins to Neovim's core?

https://github.com/rust-lang/crater is the bot they use to test proposed compiler/stdlib changes against slices of the crates.io library up to and including "all of it".

The tool you're referring to is called Crater: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater.

I'm pretty certain this isn't actually true. You should look at the editions, etc. Rust also has an insane guarantee which I am certain C/C++ don't offer: It rebuilds its entire library ecosystem each time it ships to make sure nothing breaks (https://crater.rust-lang.org). I've never seen an instance were old code didn't compile on a new compiler. Rust isn't forwards compatible (new code compiles on an old compiler) of course, but what is?