salsa VS rust-signals

There are some excellent crates already in the Rust ecosystem (notably Salsa) for performing incremental computation, although they generally have different goals to Depends.

The content of that "Core Concepts" page sounds a lot like https://github.com/salsa-rs/salsa

I know of salsa, but I don't know if it can persist changes to disk (and my guess from looking at this issue is that it can't).

- the practical approach to this is to split workload into work units (aka tasks/queries/etc.) and then force information flow through centralized "request"/"query" APIs that automatically track dependencies - see https://github.com/salsa-rs/salsa for more information

This, and as pointed Salsa.

These guys might be of interest for you, they think a lot about incremental parsers. https://github.com/salsa-rs/salsa

salsa-rs authored by niko matsakis and other top rust devs

Some optimizations are not easy with Go. For example caching like in Rust Analyser Salsa Framework

How would this differ from salsa (https://github.com/salsa-rs/salsa) and the query-driven approach used by rustc?

What is the relation and differences between this approach and rust-signals?

Signals is a fantastic and stable library for reactive programming https://github.com/Pauan/rust-signals

How does this approach differ from rust-signals? https://github.com/Pauan/rust-signals

You might want to check out dominator and the rust-signals it is based on, seems like a similar technique to avalanche.

Maybe try futures-signal? I think its API looks quite nice and it even has a tutorial.

Both are signal-based, which seems like the way to go to me. The latter seems more mature in terms of code, but also lacking in good documentation. The rust-signal crate it uses though has a nice tutorial from which a lot of concepts seem to transfer.