chalk VS rfcs

The Rust compiler uses a Prolog-like query language internally for type checking generic requirements and traits: https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk

rust-analyzer already uses chalk (https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk) which should replace the current trait resolver.

Well it's quite easy to come to that conclusion: The code compiles with rustc, which is currently the reference implementation. If rust-analyzer does not match rustc's behavior it's an issue in their implementation. That written it's not that easy to fix as it's related to how rust-analyzer resolves types/traits. rust-analyzer uses chalk for this, which is known to be incomplete/diverging from the RFC'ed behavior. Now one could argue that we can simplify diesel to the point where it works will with rust-analyzer/chalk, but that would result in basically removing core diesel features that exist way longer than rust-analyzer.

> Not all of those things work well in the real world. E.g. logic programming (prolog) is cool but ultimately never really caught on.

It does have its niches though. For example, there is a trait solver for Rust called Chalk that uses a Prolog-inspired language because trait bounds basically define a logic:

https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk

Maybe something in the prolog/datalog direction could be useful? Notably Rust has Chalk to help with trait resolution ("Chalk is a library that implements the Rust trait system, based on Prolog-ish logic rules.")

There has been work to implement part of the Rust typing logic in the Chalk Engine which uses a prolog-ish syntax to describe its rules.

That's something Chalk is trying to tackle.

We probably will see all of them at some point -- polonius is a current effort to make the borrow checker accept more valid programs, in a way that also simplifies the logic and is probably a bit faster than the current NLL system, chalk is an attempt to do a similar thing for the trait system, and cranelift is a project that seeks to replace the LLVM codegen backend. But obviously, these are very large and complex projects that are gonna take some time.

Do Rust developers realize that? Oh, yes, absolutely, that's why we have this:

For me an attempt to write where HashMap: FromIterator and then use new and insert was totally bizzare because currently rustc is pretty primitive and doesn't do super-complex machinery needed to do what you want. Chalk may fix that one day, but it's nowhere near to being ready for inclusion into rustc thus I wouldn't even attempt to do what you tried to do… but that's not something you are supposed to know before reading this book!

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