truck VS rfcs

I agree 100%.

Truck[1] and Fornjot[2] are recent attempts in the Rust space, both are WIP.

But both seem to be going the traditional way. I.e. B-Rep that can be converted to (trimmed) NURBS.

I think if one wanted to incorporate the last 50 years of computer science, particularly computer graphics, one needed to broaden the feature set considerably.

You need support for precision subdivision surface modeling with variable radius creases (either via reverse subdivision where you make sure the limit surface pass through given constraints or using an interpolating subivision scheme that but has the same perks as e.g. Catmull-Clark).

Then you need to have SDF modeling ofc.

Possibly point based representations. If only as inputs.

And traditional B-Rep.

Finally, the kernel should be able to go back and forth lossless between these representations wherever possible.

And everything must be node-based, like e.g. Houdini. Completely non-destructive.

[1] https://github.com/ricosjp/truck

[2] https://github.com/hannobraun/fornjot

I think you confuse the book/tutorial with the documentation on docs.rs.

My impression is that the former is very much a work in progress. I never looked at it until now.

The latter (and the examples in the resp. crates) is what you want to look at to see the kernel being used. E.g. https://github.com/ricosjp/truck/blob/master/truck-modeling/...

The main README has links to all the documentation of the crates.

There are two Rust projects working on parametric kernels I'm aware of.

The first one, Truck[1] seems to have a company behind it, Ricos Ltd, that look like they to know what they're doing[2]. The tweet shows their product using functionality from Truck (the frontend is not OSS AFAIK).

Fornjot is an ambitious project IMHO. Their kernel is in a separate crate[3].

As for OSS code that could be a good base to either use (or port to something like Rust) for someone to write their own kernel is Ayam [4], the oldest OSS 3D NURBS modeler that is still being developed.

[1] https://github.com/ricosjp/truck

[2] https://twitter.com/RICOS_ltd/status/1550390552482693120

[3] https://crates.io/crates/fj-kernel

[4] https://ayam.sourceforge.net/

I've been following your project with interest and was wondering if you were familiar with Truck. Its another project implementing a CAD kernel in Rust.

I will definitely keep reading and learning, as well as gaining practical implementation experience. We'll have to see how that goes, and what the solution will end up being.

> Another direction you could take is to define just the API, and use the opencascade kernel (like FreeCAD) until the rest of your code is ready.

A CAD kernel is the central dependency for any CAD program, and I feel that it would be wrong to just use one and accept its limitations. I need to be able to take ownership, to work on it directly. OpenCASCADE is a huge pile of C++ code, which is the opposite of all that. (Not saying it's wrong to use in general, just that I'm the wrong guy to work on a huge pile of C++ code.)

I've considered using Truck[1], but decided not to do that for now. I really want to see what I can come up with. If that doesn't work out, at least I'll be in a much better decision to decide what other option would be best.

[1] https://github.com/ricosjp/truck

For a specific example: I am interested in working with 3D objects using Rust (maybe this is too ambitious for a newbie!) so I found a CAD kernel crate called truck which seems to be crate built of smaller crates and implementations of other libraries. How would you go about finding the most relevant info and where to start? Should I start by understanding all the smaller parts such as the gui/gpu rendering modules, or is that irrelevant and I can focus on figuring out the top level?

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