111–120 of 191 posts
I find it absolutely frustrating that Rust packaging/crates.io doesn't support namespaces. The arguments I've read are always theoretical/what ifs, but I've yet to be convinced the current situation is better than the practical benefits of namespaces.
What do you want to do with namespaces? I don't understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was the key line: > I eventually gave up on trying to make the formatted rust-fuse code look pretty, and settled for "consistent". It turns out that most aspects of coding style are subjective and are fine once you get used to them. The *-fmt tools that are now the fashion get everyone past that initial stage of formatting things as you personally would and get you used to a common style. Maybe one person (the a…
One thing I've learned over the years using a lot of different languages is to pretty much ignore my initial reaction to syntax or formatting conventions for any given language - there is a pain period and then you get used to things and move on... Edit: I'm particularly thinking of PostScript, Lisp and Python - which on first impression seemed crazy but I actually learned to really like.
It'll turn out that a lot of them were for a good reason, but some of them won't be and the existing team has just got used to them ('missing stair'). That's why the notes are important, because you probably have too!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you want to do with namespaces? I don't understand.
What I personally want from namespaces on crates.io is basically the same as I want from org names on GitHub; the ability to manage permissions at the level of a organistation rather than each package requiring a unique setup, making it harder to audit and admin all the packages belonging to an org. It also seems like a win for consumers to know when they're using code from a specific vendor vs when they aren't. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I've learned over the years using a lot of different languages is to pretty much ignore my initial reaction to syntax or formatting conventions for any given language - there is a pain period and then you get used to things and move on... Edit: I'm particularly thinking of PostScript, Lisp and Python - which on first impression seemed crazy but I actually learned to really like.
I have a similar thing when I work on a new codebase (or join a new company for that matter): make a note of all the pain points, but don't do anything with them for a few months. It'll turn out that a lot of them were for a good reason, but some of them won't be and the existing team has just got used to them ('missing stair'). That's why the notes are important, because you probably have too!
That was a long time ago though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your String type must be valid Unicode (which is true for pretty much every language that isn't C++), it cannot represent all paths. On most unixy filesystems, filenames are arbitrary byte sequences which aren't valid UTF-8, and on windows, NTFS stores filenames as UTF-16, but it allows unpaired surrogates.
What languages require string types to be valid Unicode? Go for example let’s you put anything in a string; it’s only Unicode if you put Unicode into the string including via creating string literals.
> it doesn't even properly align the parenthesized expression after line-breaking it: Fair enough if that's not your preference for how parenthesized expressions should be broken across lines, but this quote makes it seem like it's objectively wrong. In fact it's very much a matter of opinion, and personally I hate the style of line breaking that he describes as "properly" aligned because you end up with a distractin…
rustfmt is not properly handling alignment in combination with hard tabs. It should either break after the open paren and indent both names, or break near the '+' and align them both.
Good output if aligned:
field: (value_1
+ value_2)
field: (value_1 +
value_2)
field: (
value_1
+ value_2)
field: (
value_1 +
value_2)
field: (value_1
+ value_2)
I find it absolutely frustrating that Rust packaging/crates.io doesn't support namespaces. The arguments I've read are always theoretical/what ifs, but I've yet to be convinced the current situation is better than the practical benefits of namespaces.
How do we decide which person/entity gets a namespace? What about namespace squatting? What if there's a dispute? What do we do about all the currently un-namespaced crates? How would Rust (the language) understand namespaces? How would cargo work with them?
Any such RFC needs to take in to account previous discussions (and appreciate that the crates.io team is small). E.g.:
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/crates-io-package-policies...
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/namespacing-on-crates-io/8...
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-packages-as-namesp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we decide which person/entity gets a namespace? What about namespace squatting? What if there's a dispute? What do we do about all the currently un-namespaced crates? How would Rust (the language) understand namespaces? How would cargo work with them?
As a baseline, just do it exactly like in Java/Maven, where it has been absolutely fine for almost twenty years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I gave Rust a good solid tryout. It turned out to be insufficiently expressive to put into libraries the semantics I want to encapsulate. I went back to C++, and have been very happy. (It's also nice that lots of people want to pay to have it done.) As with Rust, I can write 2000 lines and, once it compiles, it works. The hardest thing about going back to C++ from Rust was getting used to putting semicolons where Rus…
isn't C++ more like "once it compiles, it works, but later you discover 10 places where it segfaults"?
I find it absolutely frustrating that Rust packaging/crates.io doesn't support namespaces. The arguments I've read are always theoretical/what ifs, but I've yet to be convinced the current situation is better than the practical benefits of namespaces.
Everyone complains that 'fuse' is taken so they have to use something with qualifiers (e.g. rust-fuse), and then they propose to fix this with a solution that requires that everyone uses qualifiers for everything . It's a bit more consistent in that no-one gets good names, but is it really such a problem that a few people happened to get in early enough that they could call their library 'fuse'?
"rust-" or "-rs" is useless because it's on crates.io. "lib" or "-lib" similarly, unless it's part of a pair with a binary of the same name.
Here's a partial list of FUSE server implementations on crates.io:
* fuse
* cntr-fuse
* drakey-fuse
* fuse_mt
* fuser
* fuse-rs
* polyfuse
* fuse3
* yarf