rio VS rfcs

Also, not to be too bad about a reputation fallacy, but I found the author to be flippant and disrespectful when good-faith unsoundness was pointed out in his crates: https://github.com/spacejam/rio/issues/30

In my previous post on linear types I spent quite a bit of time motivating linear types. For example the ergonomic rio io_uring library could be made sound if it could guarantee destructors are run. Or performing FFI with async C++ could be made more efficient if it could rely directly on destructors rather than having to involve an intermediate runtime for each call.

It's like cargo should have a way to mark a dependency as unsafe. That way, you could have a safe mmap crate as an unsafe dependency. Or something like rio which is deliberately unsound (but is fine if you abide by its rules through the entirety of the program)

for completeness there is also rio, but:

rio still has known soundness issues– its Completion futures block the thread when dropped (!!!), and can allow for use-after-free bugs if leaked. See https://github.com/spacejam/rio/issues/30 for details.

Here are some posts about the design. https://without.boats/blog/io-uring/ https://github.com/spacejam/rio/issues/30 https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/109

The author of sled[1], an embedded database in Rust which has a number of promising features, has also written parts of rio[2], an underlying pure Rust io_uring library, which is intended to become the core write path for sled. rio has support for files but also has a demo for TCP (on Linux 5.5 and later) and O_DIRECT.

I tested rio recently as I had a Brilliant but Bad Idea™ involving file access and was pleasantly surprised by the API, as I have been with sled's.

I'm excited for the experimentation in the Rust ecosystem and for such low level crates to handle the complex io_uring tasks (relatively) safely!

[1]: https://github.com/spacejam/sled

[2]: https://github.com/spacejam/rio

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