team VS rfcs

It's just as true today, though. When the Rust mod team resigned en masse in 2021, it was announced by a programmer (the author of ripgrep) [0], and the conflict was with the core team (also programmers). A supermajority of their contributors to open source projects are programmers, so most famous meltdowns are going to be conflicts between programmers, not between programmers and the tiny minority of non-technical contributors.

I'm still waiting for anyone to give an example of an open source project meltdown that was triggered by non-technical contributors.

[0] https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671

the mods publicly outlined the governance issue, while keeping the moderation issue private (https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671)

Here's another list: https://github.com/rust-lang/team//blob/d4c071b86c33683845919cf27eabf33e15fb6784/teams/interim-leadership-chat.toml

they linked their (user)names:

https://github.com/rust-lang/team/blob/2cea9916903fffafbfae6...

You can also check rust-lang/team repo, where shows more than 400+ people have worked on the Rust Project as official members. And on thanks.rust-lang.org, it shows that 300+ people have been involved in each recent release. I believe the number of active contributors may be more than 100+.

Right, but this type of drama isn't new in the community. A while back the whole mod team resigned because they were not able to hold the core team accountable. In fact I remember it being said that the Core Team placing themselves unaccountable to anyone but themselves. So I don't think I'm being dramatic at all here.

If that's too onerous, you can also look at the list of directors and observe that there are people titled "Project Director" who you can look up on https://github.com/rust-lang/team and observe that they have in fact been selected from the project teams.

You're more than welcome to set the narrative straight. The infighting among Rust maintainers is based partially on your resignation note where you said the Core Team was "unaccountable" https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671 and implied that they were untrustworthy. The same people that once went around starting language wars, like calling Zig a "massive step backward" for the industry https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32783244.

I'm just an outsider observer, who's been watching the sparks fly. It's been interesting as well to watch how quickly memories changes when positions are dangled. If there's ever an investigative report on the tribulations of Rust, they can also dig into the allegations of nepotism around one maintainer and his girlfriend on the project, vis-a-vis Amazon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28633113.

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