warp VS rust

I tried warp [0] and I am unimpressed so far. Pretty complex, limited documentation, buggy. The builder paradigm they used feels pretty constrained and, in my opinion, achieve the opposite of the simplicity it is supposed to bring. I was surprised it is so popular.

Maybe I need more time or a favorable comparison to another framework to appreciate it.

[0] https://github.com/seanmonstar/warp

Have you gone through the (examples)[https://github.com/seanmonstar/warp/blob/master/examples/]? There's actually a lot of explicit instructions here on how to use Warp, and all of them are very straightforward to read (e.g., (this example with route parameters and a POST'ed body)[https://github.com/seanmonstar/warp/blob/master/examples/body.rs])

There are numerous guides how to do custom error messages using the routes .recover() method (including the official one ), but it seems quite inflexible since I can't (seem to?) pass the actual error messages back to user.

What I see on the examples for the warp crate is that the examples do this:

You might want to consider using Alacritty instead of Warp. Warp is VC-funded, macOS only, closed source, and it phones home. They also kinda stole the name of a web framework.

warp server,

Hello, I'd need some help with warp routes since I'm not familiar with the framework. If somebody knows how to do this I'd appreciate very much.

If one were to undertake a project of developing something like this, which is the best web framework for it. I did some cursory research and discovered these back-end frameworks - actix, axum, poem, salvo, warp, gotham and rocket.

We've added support for the warp, salvo & thruster frameworks

I am very sorry, but you do not address that TBAA, like C has by default, generally is easier than just no aliasing, like what Rust has for mutable references. This is a major difference. C code can opt into a similar kind of aliasing, namely by using _restrict_, but that is opt-in, while it is always on for Rust.

And there is newer UB as well in Rust stdlib

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139553

Real-world programs can be verified by formally proving properties on a small part of the code (called the kernel) in a way that transitively guarantees those for the remaining code.

For example, Rust's borrow checker guarantees* memory safety of any code written in Rust, even a 10M+ LOC project. Another example is sel4, a formally-verified micro-kernel (https://sel4.systems/About/seL4-whitepaper.pdf).

* Technically not; even if the code doesn't use `unsafe`, not only is Rust's borrow checker not formally verified, there are soundness holes (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aopen%20is%3A...). However, in theory it's possible to formally prove that a subset of Rust can only encode memory-safe programs, and in practice Rust's borrow checker is so effective that a 10M+ LOC project without unsafe will still probably not have memory issues.

Backend: Rust

What's weird about this?

To understand what evil_lincoln is doing, you have to understand very old Rust. Here's the commit that introduced it: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/664b0ad3fcead4fe4d2...

    fn evil_lincoln() {

Side note: There's an effort to cache proc macro invocations so that they get executed only once if the item they annotate hasn't changed: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129102

There are multiple caveats on providing this to users (we can't assume that macro invocations are idempotent, so the new behavior would have to be opt in, and this only benefits incremental compilation), but it's in our radar.

Rust: Install it from the official Rust website.