rust-playground VS rfcs

If you have an object that's !Unpin, then Miri will not apply uniqueness rules to anything containing it [0], including boxes and &mut references. (In the example code, replacing the PhantomPinned with a () will make Miri complain again.) This is considered a temporary (if long-lived) measure to allow async executors to manipulate pinned futures without invalidating all their references and whatnot. Thus, it might be seen as undetected UB, in lieu of a permanent solution.

[0] https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

That would be true if you used `Vec::clear` too, it doesn't allocate a new vector. My point was that you still end up running Drop implementations with RepeatedField, just not all at once. See https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

That's a valid Unix path, but rust's quoting does nothing to stop it: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Self-referential structs work fine in Rust and always have.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

The compiler will correctly prevent you from moving the value.

The other way to have a struct that starts out as non-self-referential and then becomes self-referential can be achieved with `unsafe` and `Pin::new_unchecked`, which is how `async {}` is handled.

In rust as currently stands: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

On the other hand, both this wrapper and yours are counterproductive if the element size is dynamic (e.g. perhaps you're dealing with some nonsense like:)

    struct ITableColumn {

Overflow checks turn into two's compliments' wrapping, but that's only considered acceptable because bounds checks are not turned off.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edit...

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds unnecessarily complicated and why I don't use Rust for any serious work.

This demonstrates the ABA problem in safe Rust: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Substitute the sleep with a combination of doing computation/work and the OS thread scheduler, and you can see how the bug surfaces.

You can also try Rust online using the Rust playground: https://play.rust-lang.org/

(Click ... beside build to get assembly) https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edit...

Unfortunately the go playground doesn't seem to support emitting assembly?

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