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

Announcing Rust 1.35.0

blog.rust-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 111 posts

Re: Announcing Rust 1.35.0

#101

Post by steveklabnik »

wtetzner wrote: post #95
jnordwick wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the team seemed to ignore the users. The two polls I saw, both had the method syntax below 50% approval and below the other front runners. It seemed to me they basically said, "Sure, tell us want you want so we can note it and ignore it." Kind of a real dick move. Why bother even asking for input? (For disclosure, I preferred postfix punctuation similar to `?` that most people hated - so I'm not gettng my way eit…

I'm in favor of the chosen syntax, but I was unaware of the poll, so I'm not sure that's a good representation of Rust users.

Part of that is because the polls weren't made by the team; it was random other users. We don't vote in Rust, and polls have so many problems that we don't use them as a method to evaluate answers to questions.

Re: Announcing Rust 1.35.0

#102

Post by steveklabnik »

pjtr wrote: post #90
eridius wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget, Rust is written in Rust, so if you want to compile Rust from source because you don't trust the precompiled toolchain, you're in for a very long and arduous journey all the way back to the last version of the compiler written in OCaml, and then compiling a bunch of intermediate compiler versions using the previously-compiled version to inch your way towards the current version. I'm not even sure how man…

Can't you use this "alternative rust compiler. Capable of building a fully-working copy of rustc" https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc and a trusted C++ compiler instead?

Yes, that would work as well.

Re: Announcing Rust 1.35.0

#103

Post by randyrand »

Just an idea, instead of printing:

  [src/main.rs:4] x == 1 = false
  [src/main.rs:9]
print this:

  [src/main.rs:4] dbg!( x == 1 ) = false
  [src/main.rs:9] dbg!
Easier to filter just your debug messages.

Re: Announcing Rust 1.35.0

#104

Post by oconnor663 »

haberman wrote: post #31

Coming from C++, this always throws me a bit: if (0..=10).contains(&5) { I assume we are taking a ref to "5" (and not passing by value) because "Range" is a generic type that might be too big to want to copy (or it may not be copyable at all). But taking a reference to a number for a simple operation like this feels... weird. It makes me worry that Rust is going to be passing around pointers to some stack-allocated "…

I wonder if the API could be expanded to accept any type that implements `Borrow`, like `HashMap::get`. Then both `5` and `&5` could work.

Re: Announcing Rust 1.35.0

#105

Post by fulafel »

comex wrote: post #69
ridiculous_fish wrote: post #66

RangeInclusive is an interesting API: 1. How does this handle ranges whose length is larger than can be represented in an integer? 2. How does iterating a range work for floats? It looks like it just adds one [1], won't this mean that it will loop forever if the next representable float is +2? 1: https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/core/iter/range.rs.html#297

1. It doesn't. 2. The Iterator implementation for RangeInclusive requires the underlying type to implement Step [1], which floats do not. So you can't iterate over a range of floats (although you can still construct one). [1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/iter/trait.Step.html

As trivia, there does exist a well defined "next FP value" [1] for floats too but its behaviour might be unproductive here.

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.0.0/std/primitive.f64.html#metho...

Re: Announcing Rust 1.35.0

#106

Post by steveklabnik »

ucarion wrote: post #52
mrbonner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I should’ve been clearer: I need cargo to be online the 1st time so that it could resolve my dependencies for me online the 1st time because I don’t want to setup local repos and stuff. Thanks

Yup, that works! It also downloads docs so you can `cargo doc` and then you can peruse the generated docs for all of your dependencies.

To be clear, it downloads the source code, and then “cargo doc” builds them from the source.

Re: Announcing Rust 1.35.0

#107

Post by jnordwick »

steveklabnik wrote: post #80
jnordwick wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the team seemed to ignore the users. The two polls I saw, both had the method syntax below 50% approval and below the other front runners. It seemed to me they basically said, "Sure, tell us want you want so we can note it and ignore it." Kind of a real dick move. Why bother even asking for input? (For disclosure, I preferred postfix punctuation similar to `?` that most people hated - so I'm not gettng my way eit…

Framing this as “the users” is disingenuous, again, a lot of users favored the decision too. The arguments of those users were taken into account, but the decision was made against it anwyay. Those polls were incredibly non-scientific, and don’t really mean anything.

And you had better polling besides just your cohort and what other said to you? This seems like a disingenuous argument, ending with you can't really trust anything but our own opinions.

Yes, they were bad, self-selecting polls. You have nothing better, and I hear far more complains than people being happy with the decision. The polls both tended to agree though so that would lend some credibility.

Maybe you should have just explained "We aren't really asking the users since we have way to show that any poll would be valid, but we will take some input and make up our mind from that."

I think that is a very precise (and charitable) description.

Re: Announcing Rust 1.35.0

#108

Post by jnordwick »

steveklabnik wrote: post #101
wtetzner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in favor of the chosen syntax, but I was unaware of the poll, so I'm not sure that's a good representation of Rust users.

Part of that is because the polls weren't made by the team; it was random other users. We don't vote in Rust, and polls have so many problems that we don't use them as a method to evaluate answers to questions.

So this decision is purely on the team - no saying "we took input from others and didn't do completely what we wanted to do.'

In that case, you as a team basically saying that you were afraid of punctuation was intellectually shallow, lazy, and a terrible decision. It wasn't like a tailing @ or # would have turned rust into APL. You should go back and revision the `?` decision then under the same reasoning.

Re: Announcing Rust 1.35.0

#109

Post by burntsushi »

wbond wrote: post #96
burntsushi wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? How did you get the source code for those dependencies in the first place? Whatever you used likely has just as much power as Cargo does. (And is perhaps similarly hard to audit.)

A well-tested, regularly audited web browser that is subjected to hacking competitions with monetarily significant rewards. However, at this point I think we are WAY off the original topic. :-)

It's not really off topic because you're hiding a super niche use case behind misleading language. e.g., You present two choices: "audit Cargo" or "copy some source files." But those aren't actually the two choices in practice, because in order to copy the source files, you actually need to obtain them first. And in order to obtain them, you very likely need to use some software to do it. And the most common pieces of software you might use to obtain said files are likely just as hard (or harder) to audit than Cargo is.

So upon further clarification, it's much clearer what your position is: "auditing Cargo myself is much harder than trusting the security of some other piece of software that has been---and continues to be---subjected to rigorous auditing by either teams of people I trust or by systematic processes that I trust." But of course, this doesn't sound nearly as nice as, "why would I audit Cargo instead of just copying some source files." Hence, it's misleading.

Once you expose your actual stance, IMO, it's pretty easy to say: "oh okay, you are in a particularly interesting niche which, while may be important, is likely not possible to serve right now. So you'll have to continue avoiding Cargo or otherwise wait until it has met your arbitrary requirements for auditing." But it should be supremely clear that the vast majority of people are not in your position. (And I suppose that would be your cue for some snarky response about how this reflects poorly on the state of software engineering.)

Re: Announcing Rust 1.35.0

#110

Post by steveklabnik »

jnordwick wrote: post #108
steveklabnik wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of that is because the polls weren't made by the team; it was random other users. We don't vote in Rust, and polls have so many problems that we don't use them as a method to evaluate answers to questions.

So this decision is purely on the team - no saying "we took input from others and didn't do completely what we wanted to do.' In that case, you as a team basically saying that you were afraid of punctuation was intellectually shallow, lazy, and a terrible decision. It wasn't like a tailing @ or # would have turned rust into APL. You should go back and revision the `?` decision then under the same reasoning.

ok
Post reply on HN