shadow VS rust

Cool, will be interested to see how this develops! tokio's loom framework has been a big help in testing some tricky concurrency code I've worked on.

Folks interested in this space might also be interested in the system I spend most of my time working on: Shadow. It also performs deterministic simulation of a network of hosts, but it intercepts network and system interactions at the syscall level via seccomp. As such it can work with binaries compiled from ~any language, usually without any code modification or special compilation. https://shadow.github.io/

Nice writeup! I've also had to dig a bit into this area in my work on shadow.

It is no longer active. If you are asking about Shadow, check out https://shadow.github.io

I do share this hesitation. I think for simple cases iterators are usually fine, but I've definitely run into cases where an iterator adapter caused unexpected performance problems. e.g. https://github.com/shadow/shadow/pull/2543

Yes. Though I'm not sure I see the connection to the OP...?

The example I'm most familiar with, because I work on it, is Shadow. We used ptrace for a bit but now use seccomp.

https://github.com/shadow/shadow/

For anyone interested in following current development on Shadow, we've been publishing a series of updates. Most recent: https://github.com/shadow/shadow/discussions/1274

The previous update has links back to the whole series; I stopped including it in the most-recent update since it was getting a bit cumbersome: https://github.com/shadow/shadow/discussions/1060

Here's an example of someone citing a disagreement between CRT and shell32:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44650

This in addition to the Rust CVE mentioned elsewhere in the thread which was rooted in this issue:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/04/09/cve-2024-24576.html

Here are some quick programs to test contrasting approaches. I don't have examples of inputs where they parse differently on hand right now, but I know they exist. This was also a problem that was frequently discussed internally when I worked at MSFT.

    #include 

> instead of choosing a certain numbered version of the random library (if I remember correctly) I let cargo download the latest version which had a completely different API.

Yeah, they didn't follow the instructions and got burned. I still think that multiple things went wrong simultaneously for that experience. I wonder if more prevalent uses of `#[doc(alias = "name")]` being leveraged by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120730 (which now that I check only accounts for methods and not functions, I should get on that!) so that when changing APIs around people at least get a slightly better experience.

Almost fixed the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123325

Rust: A secure, efficient, and modern programming language (omitting ten thousand words). You can simply follow the installation instructions provided on the official website.

Recently did something similar in Rust but for generating SVGs. We've adopted it for snapshot testing of cargo and rustc's output. Don't have a good PR handy for showing Github's rendering of changes in the SVG (text, side-by-side, swiping) but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121877/files has newly added SVGs.

To see what is supported, see the screenshot in the docs: https://docs.rs/anstyle-svg/latest/anstyle_svg/

We strongly believe in Rust as a powerful language for building production-grade software, especially for systems like ours that run alongside Kubernetes.

The above Assert<{N % 2 == 1}> requires #![feature(generic_const_exprs)] and the nightly toolchain. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76560 for more info.