stabby
rfcs
stabby | rfcs | |
---|---|---|
1 | 668 | |
291 | 5,758 | |
3.1% | 0.9% | |
8.5 | 9.8 | |
6 days ago | 1 day ago | |
Rust | Markdown | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
stabby
-
Anouncing `stabby` 1.0!
Most importantly, the stabby type representation is now specified: You can now actually read how stabby represents your types. You can even implement that representation in your language of choice, and be able to interract with types defined in Rust by stabby. If I ever get brave enough, I might try to implement stabby for C++, but I make no promises. stabby's code has been validated to actually use that representation.
rfcs
-
Cultivating Open Source Community
You can check out Rust-langs RFC Repo to see their well-documented and thorough process for an RFC.
-
Generics in Rust: murky waters of implementing foreign traits on foreign types
Finally, I found the answer in the RFC Book (RFC stands for Request For Comments). RFC 2451 from 2018-05-30 that starts with the following lines:
-
Ask HN: What April Fools jokes have you noticed this year?
RFC: Add large language models to Rust
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603
- Rust to add large language models to the standard library
-
Why does Rust choose not to provide `for` comprehensions?
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.
- Coroutines in C
-
Uv: Python Packaging in Rust
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.
- RFC: Rust Has Provenance
-
The bane of my existence: Supporting both async and sync code in Rust
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...
-
Why stdout is faster than stderr?
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.
What are some alternatives?
zenoh - zenoh unifies data in motion, data in-use, data at rest and computations. It carefully blends traditional pub/sub with geo-distributed storages, queries and computations, while retaining a level of time and space efficiency that is well beyond any of the mainstream stacks.
rust - Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
storage - An exploration of Storages
bubblewrap - Low-level unprivileged sandboxing tool used by Flatpak and similar projects
crates.io - The Rust package registry
polonius - Defines the Rust borrow checker.
Rust-for-Linux - Adding support for the Rust language to the Linux kernel.
rust-gc - Simple tracing (mark and sweep) garbage collector for Rust
rust-analyzer - A Rust compiler front-end for IDEs [Moved to: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer]
unsafe-code-guidelines - Forum for discussion about what unsafe code can and can't do
zig - General-purpose programming language and toolchain for maintaining robust, optimal, and reusable software.
miri - An interpreter for Rust's mid-level intermediate representation