tokio-uring VS rfcs

While Mio will probably not implement uring in its current design, there's https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio-uring if you want to use io_uring in Rust.

It's still in development, but the Tokio team seems intent on getting good io_uring support at least!

As the README states, the Rust implementation requires a kernel newer than the one that shipped with Ubuntu 20.04 so I think it'll be a while before we'll see significant development among major libraries.

That's what the pool is for: https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio-uring/blob/master/src/buf/fixed/pool.rs

Tokio supports io_uring (https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio-uring), so perhaps when it's mature and battle-tested, it'd be easier to transition to it if Cloudflare aren't using it already.

- Tokio suffers from a similar problem

Eg via tokio-uring.

I strongly recommend you to look into io-uring and use async executors that take advantages of it: - tokio-uring (not recommended as it is still undergoing development) - monoio - glommio

This is my thinking as well. Specifically, I realized that if you don’t use tasks, but rather futures and join, than structured concurrency just works out (at the cost of less efficient poll). In a single-threaded/thread-per-core runtime, tasks could have the same semantics as futures. Somewhat elaborated here: https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio-uring/issues/81

There's a new API on Linux called io_uring that has performance benefits, but most executors don't use it yet, except executors meant specifically to harness the power of io_uring like tokio-uring and Glommio

Breaking it down a bit further- Rust's async is zero-cost, and there's no way to write faster equivalent code to the language construct in Rust (and presumably other LLVM languages). Tokio introduces abstractions over OS APIs (indirectly) and provides a runtime. The runtime isn't zero cost, but it is likely to be better optimized for "standard" situations than a homebrewed solution, and its primary competition is in the form of other large async runtimes. On the other hand, Tokio's IO routines are (AFAIK) about as well written as one can get with blocking OS APIs, and the only competitors in that space are projects like tokio-uring that use APIs more well suited for asynchronous usage.

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