Live data from Hacker News

Rust 1.34.0

blog.rust-lang.org

21–30 of 149 posts

Re: Rust 1.34.0

#21
post #9
post #2

Such a boring release. That's why I love Rust.

For me the best releases will be when it matches D/Delphi/Ada/Eiffel/.NET Native compile times and cargo supports binary dependencies. The language as such is already quite good, in spite of one or other possible improvements on borrow checker ergonomics (e.g. callbacks).

Why binary dependencies, what for?

Re: Rust 1.34.0

#22
post #3

It feels like Rust is now 'stable'. Are there any major language related things in the pipeline?

My main interest is Polonius borrow checker and two-phase borrowing.

Re: Rust 1.34.0

#23
post #9
post #2

Such a boring release. That's why I love Rust.

For me the best releases will be when it matches D/Delphi/Ada/Eiffel/.NET Native compile times and cargo supports binary dependencies. The language as such is already quite good, in spite of one or other possible improvements on borrow checker ergonomics (e.g. callbacks).

> For me the best releases will be when it matches D/Delphi/Ada/Eiffel/.NET Native compile times [..]

Any ideas on when this will be? There has been talk about faster compile times for years now without that much apparent progress.

Re: Rust 1.34.0

#24
post #3

It feels like Rust is now 'stable'. Are there any major language related things in the pipeline?

Steve Klabnik's comment has already mentioned async-await, "const" generics (much like template parameters in C++, expected to be especially useful for numerics-like code), generic associated types/GAT (related to higher-kinded types as found in e.g. Haskell) and specialization (allowing narrower, more specific trait implementations to override broader ones; a not-so-ad-hoc, more elegant approach to the overall, broad issue of implementation inheritance).

On a different level, a lot of work has been planned to address compiler performance, improve IDE integration, and provide better support of special workflows e.g. for embedded development, or for WASM and the like. Work is also still ongoing on writing high-quality reference documentation for the language, and moreover for a better understanding of how exactly unsafe code should be expected to work, which in turn will enable a more formal approach to the Rust language as a whole.

Re: Rust 1.34.0

#25
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the best releases will be when it matches D/Delphi/Ada/Eiffel/.NET Native compile times and cargo supports binary dependencies. The language as such is already quite good, in spite of one or other possible improvements on borrow checker ergonomics (e.g. callbacks).

Why binary dependencies, what for?

Compile speed, not compiling the same dependencies all over the time.

Many commercial use cases require distribution of binary libraries, Rust community might care about winning those customers, or just let them go and leave them to keep using the languages that fulfil such use cases.

Re: Rust 1.34.0

#26
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the best releases will be when it matches D/Delphi/Ada/Eiffel/.NET Native compile times and cargo supports binary dependencies. The language as such is already quite good, in spite of one or other possible improvements on borrow checker ergonomics (e.g. callbacks).

Binary deps are on the Cargo team’s plans for the year, and compile times are always a focus. Working on it!

Looking forward to them. :)

Re: Rust 1.34.0

#27
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the best releases will be when it matches D/Delphi/Ada/Eiffel/.NET Native compile times and cargo supports binary dependencies. The language as such is already quite good, in spite of one or other possible improvements on borrow checker ergonomics (e.g. callbacks).

We will soon have async/await syntax which will replace some of the use case of callbacks, and (I assume) reduce the borrow bookkeeping tedium.

I don't think it covers GUI callbacks like on Gtk-rs, accessing internal widget data.

Re: Rust 1.34.0

#28
post #20

Hmm, fn before_exec strikes me as a thing that should be gotten rid of entirely in favor of unsafe fn before_exec if the former indeed turned out to actually have the potential to cause undefined behavior. But that'd probably be a breaking change which would require a major version number bump, so deprecation is absolutely the right thing IMO. And it also sets the stage to get rid of it outright come the next major v…

I wonder if they could after some time make it a "harder" deprecation; fail by default, and enabled only with an `#[allow]` annotation.

Re: Rust 1.34.0

#29
post #20

Hmm, fn before_exec strikes me as a thing that should be gotten rid of entirely in favor of unsafe fn before_exec if the former indeed turned out to actually have the potential to cause undefined behavior. But that'd probably be a breaking change which would require a major version number bump, so deprecation is absolutely the right thing IMO. And it also sets the stage to get rid of it outright come the next major v…

Not sure if there was nothing post-1.0, but this[0] particular mess was just before the 1.0 release and, at the time, caused a fair bit of chaos.

0. http://cglab.ca/~abeinges/blah/everyone-poops/

Re: Rust 1.34.0

#30
post #20

Hmm, fn before_exec strikes me as a thing that should be gotten rid of entirely in favor of unsafe fn before_exec if the former indeed turned out to actually have the potential to cause undefined behavior. But that'd probably be a breaking change which would require a major version number bump, so deprecation is absolutely the right thing IMO. And it also sets the stage to get rid of it outright come the next major v…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN