|6 months ago||4 months ago|
|GNU General Public License v3.0 or later||MIT License|
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.
Three Things Go Needs More Than Generics
7 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 3 Oct 2021
> Doesnt Rust have implicit panics on indexing out of bounds?
It does yes. A fair number of other constructs can panic as well.
> I wonder if any codebases lint those away.
Clippy has a lint for indexing so probably.
For the general case, it's almost impossible unless you're working on very low-level software (embedded, probably kernel-rust eventually) e.g. `std` assumes allocations can't fail, so any allocation will show up as a panic path.
https://github.com/Technolution/rustig can actually uncover panic paths, but because of the above the results are quite noisy, and while it's possible to uncover bugs thanks to rustig it requires pretty ridiculous amounts of filtering.
Linus Torvalds on Rust support in kernel
This comment is strongly confused.
That's a binary analysis tool. It is only approximate, and does not claim to be an accurate analysis like unsafe-checking and typechecking are:
> All paths leading to panic! from one of those functions (whether actually used or not) will be reported.
It also only works on x86_64 binaries.
Panics are an ugly leftover from the bad old days before Rust had nice monad-like syntax for Result error-handling (the "?" syntax). It's time for panic to sunset.
This comment is strongly missinformed:
1- panicking allocations are here to stay, because in lots of case, it's the most convenient behavior. BUT Rust is adding fallible allocations methods (prefixed with try_) which return a result instead of panicking in allocation failure.
2- panics are catch-able as long as you don't compile your binary with panic=abort setting (and as long as you don't panic in your panic handler itself)
3- panics can only occur in specific places (array indexing, allocations, utf-8 validation, unwrap, etc.) which are by definition known at compile-time, and there's tooling to catch these up .
In practice, a might_panic annotation would add a lot of noise for pretty much everybody, because most of us mortals use panicking function all days and it's not a big deal. Obviously it is critical for Linux, but because it's relevant only to the minority of rust users, it doesn't make sense to include it in rustc itself: it's exactly the kind of situation where external tooling is the good option.
About panic, recover and the fault tolerance of a go program
1 project | reddit.com/r/golang | 7 Jan 2022
In the end, it's all functions. I have a library that does supervision, but that doesn't change what I said above. Putting a service under supervision gives a solid answer to the question of what happens if there's a crash and when it terminates, but if you ever spawn anything on your own, which you often will, you still have to have answers.
Logging in a Library
1 project | reddit.com/r/golang | 11 Aug 2021
Here's the implementation in my real library.
Linus Torvalds on Rust support in kernel
That is a good idea, but one thing I would advise, having both seen several attempts made at this sort of thing and having made one myself , try very hard to separate the accidental things Erlang brings to the idea from the fundamental things Erlang brings to the idea. Most attempts I've seen made at this flounder on this pretty hard by trying to port too-directly the exact Erlang supervisor tree idea while grinding hard against the rest of the language, rather than porting the core functionality in in a way that integrates natively with the language in question as much as possible.
For instance, one thing I found when I was writing my library that will probably apply to most other languages (probably including Rust) is that Erlang has a somewhat complicated setup step for running a gen_server, with an explicit setup call, a separate execution call, several bits and pieces for 'officially' communicating with a gen_server, etc. But a lot of these things are for dealing with the exact ways that Erlang interacts with processes, and you probably don't need most of them. Simply asking for a process that makes the subprocess "start" from scratch is probably enough, and letting that process use existing communication mechanisms already in the language rather than trying to directly port the Erlang stuff. Similarly, I found no value in trying to provide direct ports of all the different types of gen_server, which aren't so much about the supervision trees (even if that's where they seem to be located) as a set of standard APIs for working with those various things. They're superfluous in a language that already has other solutions for those problems.
In addition to keeping an eye out for features you don't need from Erlang, keep an eye out for features in the host language that may be useful; e.g., the most recent suture integrates with the Go ecosystem's ever-increasing use of context.Contexts as a way to manage termination, which hasn't got a clear Erlang equivalent. (Linking to processes has some overlapping functionality but isn't exactly the same, both offering some additional functionality contexts don't have as well as missing some functionality contexts do have.)
Erlang has a lot of good ideas that I'd love to see ported into more languages. But a lot of attempts to do so flounder on these issues, creating libraries so foreign to the host language that they have zero chance of uptake.
The other thing I'd point out is that even in Go, to say nothing of Rust, crashing is actually fairly uncommon by Erlang standards. Many things that crash in Erlang are statically prevented at compile time in Go, and Rust statically precludes even more of them. However, I have found it OTP-esque supervision trees to be a very nice organizational structure to my code; I use suture in nearly every non-trivial Go program I write because it makes for a really nice modular approach for the question of "how do I start and stop persistent services?". I have seen it hold together runtime services that would otherwise be failing, the way it is supposed to, and that's nice, but the organization structure is still probably the larger benefit.
(There is deep reason for the way Erlang is doing it the way it does, which is that a lot of Erlang's type system, or lack thereof, is for communicating between nodes, so even if you perfectly program Erlang, if two nodes running different versions of code try to communicate with each other and they've changed the protocol you might get a pattern matching fail on the messages flowing between versions. The Erlang way of doing cross-machine communication has not caught on and this problem is handled in other ways nowadays.)
What are some alternatives?
Rust-for-Linux - Adding support for the Rust language to the Linux kernel.
go101 - An online book focusing on Go syntax/semantics and runtime related things