tools VS gcc

When I saw the release of bun six months ago, I was not that hyped as I saw a tool that had similar ambitions, Rome, and dissapointed many. But it was different this time. It really is a drop in replacement for Node.js so you can start using it by replacing the npm and node commands in your package.json file. The main feature that captured my interest was the ability to use require and import statemtents in the same file. This allows you to keep using CommonJS modules and use import statemtents for any new modules that drop support for it. The only catch I could find so far is that if you decide to mix import and require statements, you cannot use module.exports but instead use export statement. I did exactly that and now I have a fully functional backend with admin panel that won't make your head scratch fighting with CommonJS and ESModules.

Once you build a simple Vite backend integration, try not to complicate Vite's configuration unless you absolutely must. Vite has become one of the most popular bundlers in the frontend space, but it wasn't the first and it certainly won't be the last. In my 7 years of building for the web, I've used Grunt, Gulp, Webpack, esbuild, and Parcel. Snowpack and Rome came-and-went before I ever had a chance to try them. Bun is vying for the spot of The New Hotness in bundling, Rome has been forked into Biome, and Vercel is building a Rust-based Webpack alternative.

It definitely existed by the time rome_console/biome_console was created! The crate was created 2 years ago[1] and miette was released more than 2 years ago[2]. By the time rome_console was created miette was on v4, so presumably somewhat mature.

[1]: https://github.com/rome/tools/commits/main/crates/rome_conso...

[2]: https://crates.io/crates/miette/versions

Biome formats and lints your JavaScript and TypeScript code in a fraction of a second. Biome is the community successor of Rome Tools [0].

As part of this announcement, we have released the first stable version of Biome [1]. Join us on our Discord [2] and support us via our open collective [3].

I am one of the main maintainers of Biome. I will be happy to answer any questions :)

[0] https://github.com/rome/tools

I have no idea how true this is, but the source of the claim seems to come from here:

https://github.com/rome/tools/discussions/4302

"But in short, the company Rome Tools ran out of funding, so the core team of last year are no longer working on the project."

For now, Rome implements most of the ESLint recommended rules (including TypeScript ESLint) and some additional rules that are enabled by default. In the future, you can expect a recommended preset that is a superset of the ESLint recommended preset. So if you're not heavily customising ESLint, you should be able to use Rome.

Otherwise, most of the rules are not fine-tunable in the way that ESLint is. Rome tries to provide the experience that Prettier provided in the formatting tool: good defaults for a near-zero configuration experience. It tries to adopt the conventions of the JS/TS community. Still, some configuration is provided when the community is divided on some opinions (e.g. space vs. tab indentation, semicolons or as-needed semicolons, ...).

There is an open issue [1] for listing equivalent rules between ESLint and Rome. Expect more documentation in the future, and maybe a migration tool.

If I had been one of the founders of Rome, I could have pushed for more compatibility with ESLint. In particular, using the same naming conventions and thus the same names for most rules, and recognising ESLint ignore comments.

[1] https://github.com/rome/tools/issues/3892

Today we are going to talk about Rome. According to their github page

I must say, although it doesn't (of course) have anywhere near the configuration or plugin-capability of eslint, I've found Rome impressive so far. I have access to a range of PCs and the performance boost of a compiled binary makes a pretty big difference on a large repo on a slower machine.

Fast compilation seems very appealing. It is one of the main reason why I am interested into Go and Zig.

I recently started working with Rust for contributing to projects like Rome/tools [1] and deno_lint [2]. The compilation and IDE experience is frustrating. Compilation is slow. I am afraid that this is rooted to the inherent complexity of Rust.

[1] https://github.com/rome/tools

[2] https://github.com/denoland/deno_lint

Exiting news!

I hope that Rome will soon support semicolon removal [1]

[1] https://github.com/rome/tools/issues/3535

> It's true, this was a CVE in Rust and not a CVE in C++, but only because C++ doesn't regard the issue as a problem at all. The problem definitely exists in C++, but it's not acknowledged as a problem, let alone fixed.

Can you find a link that substantiates your claim? You're throwing out some heavy accusations here that don't seem to match reality at all.

Case in point, this was fixed in both major C++ libraries:

https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...

So what C++ community refused to regard this as an issue and refused to fix it? Where is your supporting evidence for your claims?

Somewhat related: In 2020 gcc bumped the requirement for bootstrapping to be a C++11 compiler [0]. Would have been fun to see the kernel finally adopt C++14 as the author suggested.

I don't think that Linus will allow this since he just commented that he will allow rust in drivers and major subsystems [1].

I do found it pretty funny that even Linus is also not writing any rust code, but is reading rust code.

I would have hoped see more answers or see something in here from actual kernel developers.

0: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/5329b59a2e13dabbe20...

> They’re saying that a lot of the restrictions makes things much harder than other languages. Hence the general problem rust has where a lot of trivial tasks in other languages are extremely challenging.

Like what? So far the discussion has revolved around rewriting a linked list, which people generally shouldn't ever need to do because it's included in the standard lib for most languages. And it's a decidedly nontrivial task to do as well as the standard lib when you don't sacrifice runtime overhead to be able to handwave object lifecycle management.

- C++: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-...

- Rust: https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/src/alloc/collections/linked_...

> No need to get defensive, no one is arguing that rust doesn’t do a lot of things well.

That's literally what bsaul is arguing in another comment. :)

> You’re talking up getting a safe implementation in C, but what matters is “can I get the same level of safety with less complexity in any language”, and the answer is yes: Java and c# implementations of a thread safe linked list are trivial.

Less perceived complexity. In Java and C# you're delegating the responsibility of lifecycle management to garbage collectors. For small to medium scale web apps, the added complexity will be under the hood and you won't have to worry about it. For extreme use cases, the behavior and overhead of the garbage collector does became relevant.

If you factor in the code for the garbage collector that Java and C# depend on, the code complexity will tilt dramatically in favor of C++ or Rust.

However, it's going to be non-idiomatic to rewrite a garbage collector in Java or C# like it is to rewrite a linked list in Rust. If we consider the languages as they're actually used, rather than an academic scenario which mostly crops up when people expect the language to behave like C or Java, the comparison is a lot more favorable than you're framing it as.

> If I wanted I could do it in c++ though the complexity would be more than c# and Java it would be easier than rust.

You can certainly write a thread-safe linked list in C++, but then the enforcement of any assumptions you made about using it will be a manual burden on the user. This isn't just a design problem you can solve with more code - C++ is incapable of expressing the same restrictions as Rust, because doing so would break compatibility with C++ code and the language constructs needed to do so don't exist.

So it's somewhat apples and oranges here. Yes, you may have provided your team with a linked list, but it will either

GCC is also written in C++, and has had C++ deps since 2013:

https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/c/c-parser...

Compliers/Interpreters are also very commonly open source (here is the source code for a popular C compiler). That means you can even modify the compiler's code and change its behavior if you wanted to.

according to this commit, the story here seems to be much more interessting than I initially anticipated.

For a more detailed explanation, see [2]. (Also the inspiration for the above example,)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation

[2] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/50ddbd0282e06614b29...