rust-orphan-rules VS rfcs

Well, unless someone comes up with better, compatible rules, the orpan rules are gonna stick around.

Additionally there are other issues with rust currently. Compile time code (ala constexpr) is not up to par with C++20 (not really close). The const generic aren't as powerful as C++20 which added non primitive non type template parameters (though with you stuck with C++14, it actually is significantly better than what you have, again, if you're going to use C++, just use 20). Generics accepting closures is a bit more of an ordeal in rust, compared to C++. Also C++'s Duck Typed templates allow for some uncharacteristically strong typing compared to what is expressible in Rust generics currently. Now, duck typed templates do have major downsides, for example the entire feature of concepts is completely irrelevant in rust, but required for sane DTT type bounds, but they also have major upsides. Rust currently doesn't have "negative trait bounds", basically "This objected does not implement this trait, or std::enable_if> or the equivalent concepts implementation. Rust also doesn't have trait specializations, basically template specialization. Do note all features I've talked about to this point have nightly options, they just are at various stages of being stable/complete. Another issue is the orphan rule, though this is kind of a problem in C++ too in some respects, and that's unlikely to change drastically, since there are legitimate reasons for it's existence. For a lot of code none of these things are big deals, others they are, which is why you find inconsistent feed back on these issues.

Not that simple... hence why Orphan rule is still in-place. The struct wrapper was implemented in Rust as a temporary safe work-around. However, they are making progress on a solution: https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules/issues/1

That's still not an entirely complete explanation because there's more nuanced situations which aren't completely foreign but are foreign enough that if allowed, two crates could write the same impls. Some of the definitions are still unofficial as far as am I'm aware. For the best reference I’ve seen so far see this for more details.

In our crate the compiler doesn't know when calling MyTrait methods on MyStruct whether to use the implementation defined in crate 3 or crate 4! Rust has a set of orphan rules to prevent this situation from happening.

Sadly because of the rusts orphan rule you cannot implement a Trait on a Type where you do not own one or the other. So, apart from upstream contributions your only options are either a new Trait or a new Type.

If anyone is looking for additional background about orphan rules, check out https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules

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