Our great sponsors
rustfmt | rfcs | |
---|---|---|
57 | 664 | |
5,710 | 5,657 | |
1.9% | 1.6% | |
8.9 | 9.7 | |
2 days ago | 1 day ago | |
Rust | Markdown | |
Apache License 2.0 | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
rustfmt
-
You can't do that because I hate you
The author provides very surface-level criticism of two Rust tools, but they don't look into why those choices were made.
With about five minutes of my time, I found out:
wrap_comments was introduced in 2019 [0]. There are bugs in the implementation (it breaks Markdown tables), so the option hasn't been marked as stable. Progress on the issue has been spotty.
--no-merge-sources is not trivial to re-implement [1]. The author has already explained why the flag no longer works -- Cargo integrated the command, but not all of the flags. This commit [2] explains why this functionality was removed in the first place.
Rust is open source, so the author of this blog post could improve the state of the software they care about by championing these issues. The --no-merge-sources error message even encourages you to open an issue, presumably so that the authors of Cargo can gauge the importance of certain flags/features.
You could even do something much simpler, like adding a comment to the related issues mentioning that you ran into these rough edges and that it made your life a little worse, or with a workaround that you found.
Alternatively, you can continue to write about how much free software sucks.
[0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/3347
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/10344
[2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/commit/3842d8e6f20067f716...
-
Let else will finally be formatted by rustfmt soon
The new style still supports single line let-else, and there is a configuration parameter to make it be on one line also for longer lines.
Yacin Tmimi for actually implementing the bloody thing
-
Is rustfmt abandoned? Will it ever format `let ... else` syntax?
I’m not sure they are? I don’t mean this to criticize anybody on the project — I’m sure they have other things going on — but there are a whole bunch of open PRs without even a single comment.
It seems there is an issue about this dating all the way back from 2018 but yet it still hasn't been fixed.
Presumably, https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/pull/5690
-
Hey Rustaceans! Got a question? Ask here (22/2023)!
However since 4179 recent versions should merge configuration files. Not sure what the details / specifics are but if just ignoring the file entirely is not good enough you might give it its own directory and rustfmt.toml file and see if that works.
-
Rust Tips and Tricks #PartOne
Rustfmt is a tool that formats Rust code in compliance with style guidelines. Its name precisely reflects its purpose. To install rustfmt, you can run rustup component add rustfmt. Once installed, you can execute cargo fmt to format Rust code in your workspace. If you require further information, you can visit rustfmt’s GitHub repository.
-
What are some good practices when writing rust?
code must be formatted with rustfmt.
-
Hey Rustaceans! Got a question? Ask here (5/2023)!
Yes, some cases are not yet supported (https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/4914).
rfcs
- Coroutines in C
-
Uv: Python Packaging in Rust
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.
- RFC: Rust Has Provenance
-
The bane of my existence: Supporting both async and sync code in Rust
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...
-
Why stdout is faster than stderr?
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.
-
Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong
Rust shares Go's "errors as values + panics" philosophy. Rust also has a standard library API for catching panics. Its addition was controversial, but there are two major cases that were specifically enumerated as reasons to add this API: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1236-stab...
> It is currently defined as undefined behavior to have a Rust program panic across an FFI boundary. For example if C calls into Rust and Rust panics, then this is undefined behavior. Being able to catch a panic will allow writing C APIs in Rust that do not risk aborting the process they are embedded into.
> Abstractions like thread pools want to catch the panics of tasks being run instead of having the thread torn down (and having to spawn a new thread).
The latter has a few other similar examples, like say, a web server that wants to protect against user code bringing the entire system down.
That said, for various reasons, you don't see catch_unwind used in Rust very often. These are very limited cases.
-
Ask HN: What's the fastest programming language with a large standard library?
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...
-
Progress toward a GCC-based Rust compiler
Mara's blog post also describes the benefits of standardizing Rust.
Since she created the RFC for standardizing Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355) and is also on the team that is working on Rust standardization (https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-visio...), I think she was making the point that Rust has good controls in place for adding features while compatibility, not that "Rust does not need a standard".
If she really believed that Rust does not need a standard, why would she create the RFC and join the team working on the effort?
Rust is a great language. There is no reason why it should not have a standard to better formalize its requirements and behaviors.
What are some alternatives?
Clippy - A bunch of lints to catch common mistakes and improve your Rust code. Book: https://doc.rust-lang.org/clippy/
rust-analyzer - A Rust compiler front-end for IDEs [Moved to: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer]
rust-analyzer - A Rust compiler front-end for IDEs
Rust for Visual Studio Code
vscode-rust
sublime-rust - The official Sublime Text 4 package for the Rust Programming Language
rust-on-raspberry-pi
CodeLLDB - A native debugger extension for VSCode based on LLDB
rust - Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
bubblewrap - Low-level unprivileged sandboxing tool used by Flatpak and similar projects
Helix - Native Ruby extensions without fear
rr - Record and Replay Framework