zig VS rules_rust

There is an issue proposing this approach: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/4284

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/224

e.g.:

> > When debugging/prototyping, it's useful to comment out a line without having to refactor, e.g.

When writing code in a scripting language, sometimes you need that extra bit of performance (or maybe an async feature from Zig).

NodeJS is by no means a slow runtime, it wouldn’t be so popular if it was. But compared to Bun, it’s slow. Bun was built from the ground up with speed in mind, using both JavascriptCore and Zig. The Bun team spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to make Bun fast, including lots of profiling, benchmarking, and optimizations.

ntdll.dll!RtlUserThreadStart()

There are valid reasons to use APIs from NTDLL. Where I disagree with zig#1840 is the idea that it is always better to use NTDLL versions of API. Every other software ecosystem uses the standard Win32 APIs and diverging from that without a good reason seems like a good way to have unexpected behavior. One concrete example is most users and programmers expect Windows to redirect some file system paths when running on WOW64. But this is implemented in Kernel32, not ntdll.

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/11894

Zig also has an IRC channel on libera (#zig) that is moderated by Andrew Kelley.[1]

[1] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/wiki/Community

The same reason Bazel builds avoid using Cargo when building Rust software, so I'll describe why Bazel would do this:

- Bazel wants to cache remote resources, like each respective crate's source files.

- Bazel then wants to build each crate in a sandbox, and cache the build artifacts

This is an established practice, and Nix wants to drive the build for the same reasons.

See:

- https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust

- https://github.com/google/cargo-raze

To answer your question, I don't know if Soong or Bazel can reuse the files produced by an incremental Rust compilation. I tried searching the rules_rust repository and found some discussions, but nothing that clearly told me "Yes, this is supported".

Bazel doesn't allow targeting a lot of platforms (especially embedded) from Rust, even when the Rust ecosystem supports these targets. Something is off with its design if new work needs to be done for every platform that's already available behind an interface that's as consistent as what rustc gives.

What is supported needs to be inferred from this file, as far as I can tell: https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust/blob/main/rust/plat...

You might be overjoyed to learn that you can use a build tool that forces you to manually write out the dependencies between each file.

I am using rules_rust and have the VS Code Bazel plugin installed, but I am still not getting autocomplete.

Other than that, the performance of both for builds should be determined exactly by the organization of code into separate crates and the rustc invocations. Bazel generally encourages smaller crates, but that's very subtle. There is at least 1 case I can think of where rustc is overfit to cargo, in a way that is not easily replicable by bazel, which is the metadata/rlib pipelining https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust/issues/228

Rust integrates pretty seamlessly into Bazel projects via rules_rust (https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust). The existing rules even allow for c calling rust and rust calling c. Example: https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust/blob/main/examples/...

With any compiled language you can use the compiler and vendor your dependencies instead of using the language's conventional package manager. For example, nothing prevents skipping Cargo and building Rust directly with rustc the way Bazel does.

https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust