rumqtt VS rust-playground

https://github.com/bytebeamio/rumqtt

Disclaimer: have not tried it myself. I was, however, considering using it to replace Mosquitto as a broker.

Other crates like https://crates.io/crates/paho-mqtt and https://github.com/bytebeamio/rumqtt are not available for browsers and do not compile to wasm.

Recently lot of new contributors showed interest, as well as contributed to rumqtt, so thank you so much everyone for your support <3 Feel free to discuss anything in comments, if you wish to contribute as well, you can look for `good-first-issues` ( or open new issues here )

GitHub release - rumqttd-0.15.0

there is already an issue open for it: https://github.com/bytebeamio/rumqtt/issues/432. It is something that we would love to have, but not something in priority.

I wanted to let you know that rumqttc, a Rust MQTT client library, now supports several new features in MQTT 5 protocol. If you're not familiar with MQTT, it's a lightweight messaging protocol designed for IoT devices with limited resources.

I know I should have asked this in their issues, but someone already did and didn't get a response. So I was not sure whether to create another issue, or comment in the same one (and not get a response as well?). So I decided to ask on Reddit first, thank you! https://github.com/bytebeamio/rumqtt/issues/598

That would be true if you used `Vec::clear` too, it doesn't allocate a new vector. My point was that you still end up running Drop implementations with RepeatedField, just not all at once. See https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

That's a valid Unix path, but rust's quoting does nothing to stop it: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Self-referential structs work fine in Rust and always have.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

The compiler will correctly prevent you from moving the value.

The other way to have a struct that starts out as non-self-referential and then becomes self-referential can be achieved with `unsafe` and `Pin::new_unchecked`, which is how `async {}` is handled.

In rust as currently stands: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

On the other hand, both this wrapper and yours are counterproductive if the element size is dynamic (e.g. perhaps you're dealing with some nonsense like:)

    struct ITableColumn {

Overflow checks turn into two's compliments' wrapping, but that's only considered acceptable because bounds checks are not turned off.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edit...

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds unnecessarily complicated and why I don't use Rust for any serious work.

This demonstrates the ABA problem in safe Rust: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Substitute the sleep with a combination of doing computation/work and the OS thread scheduler, and you can see how the bug surfaces.

You can also try Rust online using the Rust playground: https://play.rust-lang.org/

(Click ... beside build to get assembly) https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edit...

Unfortunately the go playground doesn't seem to support emitting assembly?

Rust isn't a fully functional language, but the functional features play well with the lifetime system and are optimized well.

(Rust playground example: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...)