semver-trick VS rfcs

Let's say crate B depends on crate A with a pinned dependency, and uses one of its types in a public interface.

Crate C depends on them both. It now can't bring in updates to A until B does, and when B updates that's a breaking change, so it better bump its major version.

Take a look at this teick, for example, for foundational crates updating their major version: https://github.com/dtolnay/semver-trick

Now imagine that being an issue every single patxh update.

Rust modules require a tiny bit more definition up-front, but they neatly decouple the module hierarchy from file layout so you can reorganize code however you like in future, and they support very fine grained control of privacy (such as being able to say pub(super) and pub(crate)). In extreme cases, you can even re-export symbols from one module in another without it counting as a breaking change, so you have even more options for evolving your project without breaking existing consumers. Look at the the semver trick as an example of how powerful this can be and how much freedom it gives library implementors. (And even if you're only a library consumer, wouldn't you rather be consuming libraries by implementors that had more freedom and power?)

A library author concerned about this can use the semver trick. TL;DR: if your current version is 0.42, you can do a 1.0 release, then do a 0.43 release that depends upon your 1.0 release and re-exports all the symbols.

I mean for all the parts of the standard library that do not change, one could presumably use the semver-trick.

The semver trick can help with libraries at least when they go to unify the ecosystem. Release new versions that replicate previous APIs in a compatible way while moving to the standard library implementation.

Because you still run into the problem that's been seen when various important crates upgraded and either didn't use the semver trick or had downstream crates specifying Cargo.toml version requirements too narrowly for it to be effective.

It's called the "semver-trick" [1].

[1]: https://github.com/dtolnay/semver-trick

The JVM is 114MiB on my machine. A near-minimal ggez program in debug mode is about 100MiB,¹ and ggez is small for a Rust application library. When you start getting into the 300s of dependencies (i.e. every time I've ever got beyond a trivial desktop application), you're lucky if your release build is less than 100MiB.

Sure, I could probably halve that by forking every dependency so they aren't duplicating versions, but that's a lot of work. (It's a shame Rust doesn't let you do conditional compilation based on dependency versions, or this would be a lot easier. As it is, we have to resort to the Semver trick: https://github.com/dtolnay/semver-trick/ — not that many people do that, so it's functionally useless.)

¹: I can get it down to around 8MiB with release mode, lto etc., but that significantly increases the build time and only about halves the weight of the intermediate build files.

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