crater VS rust-prehistory

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?

There’s a rust-prehistory repo preserving Rust’s compiler code at very early stage. You can see how Rust looks like at that time.

https://github.com/graydon/rust-prehistory is another good resource, particularly the doc/notes directory. All kinds of good stuff in there that looks pretty different than today. I also liked Marijn's talk, The Rust That Could Have Been.

There's also this repository depending how far back you want

If, on the other hand, you’re interested in pre-modern Rust, there’s always this repo: https://github.com/graydon/rust-prehistory

For some snapshots on the history of the language up to 1.0 check out: https://brson.github.io/archaea/. For some really ancient stuff check out the graydon/rust-prehistory/ repo. Also looking at the oldest commits and issues on the Rust repo can be pretty interesting. It's a great public resource.

As Graydon Hoare notes in the comments on GitHub this wasn't the first repo so the real history goes back even further. He's also shared a "prehistory" repo [1] which is interesting to browse. The first commit [2] in _that_ repo is from 2008 but Graydon mentions starting work back in 2006.

Anyway in a sense this repo represents Rust in the real world rather than in gestation, so seems apt to call it the birthday.

[1] https://github.com/graydon/rust-prehistory

[2] https://github.com/graydon/rust-prehistory/commit/1969e085e3...

Early Rust was very different (example). It is almost certain that modern Rust took a lot of cues from Go. And, as above, Go was obviously heavily inspired by C, just like your language. So, all told, where you landed is likely very much what is expected.

The pre-git history was imported as https://github.com/graydon/rust-prehistory

Two other links related to ancient Rust:

* https://github.com/graydon/rust-prehistory -> the code from before the rust-lang/rust repo

* https://youtube.com/watch?v=79PSagCD_AY -> a talk I gave around the 1.0 release giving my personal perspective on the history.

Oh heck, one more fun one: https://github.com/brson/archaea