Clippy VS rfcs

cargo, rustfmt, clippy, rust-analyzer, and Rust’s robust unit testing capabilities together form a powerful ecosystem for managing large-scale projects like Spin.

Firstly, I added a section to run the code formatter rustfmt and the linter clippy:

I couldn't find it in the API guidelines either. From what I understand, the idea is that any trait bounds, which includes generic type parameter bounds and lifetime bound on a type (struct or enum) would be repeated back in the impl block

there is a nice discussion on this issue here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/1689

You should not blindly follow clippy lints. They are sometimes wrong. Another example https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9782 .

I often write () = f() to assert that f() is unit. Unfortunately clippy warns on such code ( https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9048 ). There are very recent pull requests for this bug, so hopefully this bug will be fixed very soon. But meanwhile I invented this workaround: [()] = [f()] :)

Apart from running clippy on many projects being essential, clippy is also an exceptionally welcoming project, no matter your prior knowledge.

clippy is a great place to get started :) though it isn't exactly new.

clippy is also pretty compiler-adjacent and unlike rust-analyzer uses rustc's internal APIs. Don't let the size of the code base scare you off! It's actually feasible for a newcomer to contribute even such a substantial change as a new lint, and we have issues labeled as "good first issue" that come with mentorship, so you don't need to go it alone.

Yes, you could use it to write a lint. Although you might find it easier to just fork Clippy and add your own lints to their existing framework.

> Interestingly, Windows on ARM hasn't made it up to Tier 1 yet.

An RFC for that has been submitted recently: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3817

This is already discussed for Rust: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3605. TL;DR: it's not as easy as it looks to just add "freeze."

Some people _do_ care about this (e.g. the proponents of this new RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3810). However, for some reason (culture, I guess?) there isn't much momentum yet to change the status quo.

Actually, a proposal for exactly this was published yesterday: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3810

It's unfortunate that the response so far hasn't been very positive

> > no dynamic linking

> There is.

Eh, I'm a Rust fan, and I hate the dynamic linking situation too.

I genuinely cannot see how Rust would be able to scale to something usable for all system applications the way it is now. Is every graphical application supposed to duplicate and statically link the entire set of GNOME/GTK or KDE/Qt libraries it needs? The system would become ginormous.

The only shared library support we have now is either using the C ABI, which would make for a horrible way to use Rust dependencies, or by pinning an exact version of the Rust compiler, which makes developing for the system almost impossible.

Hopefully we'll get something with #[export] [1] and extern "crabi" [2], but until then Rust won't be able to replace many things C and C++ are used for.

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3435

[2] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3470

As you can see, all trait methods are stored in sequence without any distinction between which method belongs to which trait. This is why upcasting is not possible. There's an ongoing RFC—RFC 2765—tracking this issue. Instead of discussing the solution proposed by the RFC here, we’ll introduce a more general workaround by adding an AsBase trait:

And for extra context the RFc lays out the current design and future options: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3324-dyn-...