Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Astral

astral.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 248 posts

Re: Astral

#201

Post by jeffparsons »

robocat wrote: post #169
steveklabnik wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not aware of him saying anything about Rust beyond this: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=151233345723889&w=2 Which doesn't mean he hasn't, of course!

That email (from Dec 2017) ends with “Such ecosystems come with incredible costs. For instance, rust cannot even compile itself on i386 at present time because it exhausts the address space.”. I presume Theo is actually complaining about using more than 3 GB (?) of memory, but still it really shows the different cost-versus-benefit decisions that we all make.

Is it actually reasonable to expect compiler toolchains to work on old or underpowered hardware? Or is the real problem that cross-compilation is still a special case, rather than being the only way compilers work? If it wasn't still normal to depend on your target environment being the same as your build host, would anyone really want to do serious development work directly on their RPi/Gameboy/watch/whatever, just because that is the target runtime environment?

Re: Astral

#202

Post by fsckboy »

rattray wrote: post #188
zx8080 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be sure. Is Ruff faster by lacking type checking? Also, does Ruff work well on codebase without type hints?

Ruff is faster than many tools which don't do type checking. Ruff works well regardless of whether you use type hints.

that's dodging the question a little bit? let's say Ruff is faster because it's so good, how much faster than type checking alternatives would this great tool be if it did type checking?

Re: Astral

#203

Post by unethical_ban »

riceart wrote: post #194
unethical_ban wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it was.

No it was not. The question was directed at the commenter about assessing skill, never made any statement disparaging said skill. Also you seem to be unaware of the relationship of this commenter - you may want to examine their Twitter from before this story was submitted here. Or go on and prove yourself a prat, I won’t stop you.

You're out of line, no need to name-call. I may not want to examine the website and twitter feeds of every commenter on here. Perhaps it wasn't rude, but given how pedantic many people here are, I took the original comment to be a criticism of praising the coder, not a genuine question of evaluating code quality.

Re: Astral

#204

Post by za3faran »

serial_dev wrote: post #138
throwaway2137 wrote: post #112

Yet another case of Python developers getting a basic utility which any other language had available for years and being amazed at something which is an industry standard literally anywhere else. Linter taking multiple seconds is not a problem which occurs in any other popular language. It really boggles my mind why is this lang so popular. Once you write something a little more involved than an utility script or jup…

Same, the tooling makes a big difference when it comes to languages. I'm a Dart developer by day, Rust enthusiast by night, both are relatively modern languages and the tooling just feels right (of course nothing is perfect): the analyzer, linter, testing, dependency management, lsp, formatter are all just there. I never want to go back to 20-30 year old languages where, for all these tools, there are 10 different su…

Java is in the same category as C# from the previous post. Mature off the shelf libraries, with a great ecosystem and great integration.

Re: Astral

#205

Post by viraptor »

fsckboy wrote: post #202
rattray wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ruff is faster than many tools which don't do type checking. Ruff works well regardless of whether you use type hints.

that's dodging the question a little bit? let's say Ruff is faster because it's so good, how much faster than type checking alternatives would this great tool be if it did type checking?

Without building the tool to compare, it's really hard to tell. In my experience of rewriting some Python and Ruby code into compiled versions, you can expect 10-20x improvements. But it's both really dependant on the code itself and on how you're going to reimplement it - most of the time it doesn't make sense to do perfect 1:1 rewrites.

Re: Astral

#206

Post by akx »

hkt wrote: post #102

This sounds nice, but um, what's the benefit to faster linting? Is it being slow really a problem people have? I've no experience of this.

18 minutes of CPU time vs 22 seconds of CPU time is significant energy-wise too.

(Example from https://github.com/home-assistant/core/pull/86224 by yours truly.)

Re: Astral

#208

Post by chinaman425 »

ehsankia wrote: post #184
smt88 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choosing a language based on initial setup or Hello World is valuing the wrong things. You set up an application once, write each line a few times, read it dozens of times, and run it millions of times. The most costly part of that process is reading/rewriting because developer time is expensive. Language choice should be optimized to make it easy to read other people's code and to prevent mistakes from getting into…

> Language choice should be optimized to make it easy to read other people's code and to prevent mistakes from getting into production. Python is not near the top of the pack in those dimensions. I think most people would definitely disagree with you on the first point. As far as languages go, Python is probably one of the most readable ones out there. It's often even compared to pseudocode because well written Pytho…

> It's often even compared to pseudocode because well written Python reads like it.

This is absolute rubbish. Go and find me a piece of application code which isn’t procedural math/data manipulation, give it to someone completely new to it and see how easily they (don’t) comprehend it.

Re: Astral

#209

Post by Cort3z »

akprasad wrote: post #5

I love Ruff and I'm glad that Charlie and the rest of the team are able to work on such tools full-time. I'm also happy to see that the author of Maturin (Rust+Python interop) is involved, as Maturin is a fantastic project with great ease-of-use. For those who aren't familiar, Ruff is a very fast Python linter that supersedes a variety of tools like isort, flake8, and perhaps eventually Black [1]. My understanding is…

Ruff is great, but it lacks a lot of the rules[1]. As far as I understand it reads every file in parallel, if that is still the case there are categories of issues it cannot detect. In my case ruff cannot fully replace my existing tools, but makes for a great companion.

1: https://github.com/charliermarsh/ruff/issues/970

Re: Astral

#210

Post by robocat »

jeffparsons wrote: post #201
robocat wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That email (from Dec 2017) ends with “Such ecosystems come with incredible costs. For instance, rust cannot even compile itself on i386 at present time because it exhausts the address space.”. I presume Theo is actually complaining about using more than 3 GB (?) of memory, but still it really shows the different cost-versus-benefit decisions that we all make.

Is it actually reasonable to expect compiler toolchains to work on old or underpowered hardware? Or is the real problem that cross-compilation is still a special case, rather than being the only way compilers work? If it wasn't still normal to depend on your target environment being the same as your build host, would anyone really want to do serious development work directly on their RPi/Gameboy/watch/whatever, just…

I am wildly guessing that Theo’s beef is more that rust uses a lot of memory (paraphrase: 640kb should be enough for anybody). OpenBSD does integration builds on a variety of different systems, and maybe Theo noticed the OpenBSD/386 build failing due to lack of necessary memory?
Post reply on HN