1.16 already! Do they sleep ?
We used a time-based release schedule; each minor version comes out every six weeks. We believe this approach is better for a number of reasons, including quality.
Announcing Rust 1.16
41–50 of 95 posts
Re: Announcing Rust 1.16
#42I'm eagerly awaiting a release of RLS that is installable via rustup.
Me too exactly
Re: Announcing Rust 1.16
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true at all. You can use dynamic libraries; Swift modules produce .framework packages, which are dynamically linked.
I meant dylib files. You can't ship those, but you can ship dynamically linked frameworks.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Re: Announcing Rust 1.16
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true at all. You can use dynamic libraries; Swift modules produce .framework packages, which are dynamically linked.
I meant dylib files. You can't ship those, but you can ship dynamically linked frameworks.
AFAIK the only difference between a dylib and a framework is the folder structure (and I guess the install path of the library). So in theory you could produce a cdylib, create a framework folder structure for it, and then use install_name_tool to update the install name appropriately.
Re: Announcing Rust 1.16
#45Thank you SO MUCH for 'cargo check'! 5-times faster for our biggest project.
Although you broke your promise about avoiding breaking changes. I know I know, it wasn't promise and wasn't about breaking changes, it was something else about something else.
"The attribute `export_macro` is currently unknown to the compiler" - what a surprise in beta 1.17.
Re: Announcing Rust 1.16
#46Thank you SO MUCH for 'cargo check'! 5-times faster for our biggest project.
Although you broke your promise about avoiding breaking changes. I know I know, it wasn't promise and wasn't about breaking changes, it was something else about something else. "The attribute `export_macro` is currently unknown to the compiler" - what a surprise in beta 1.17.
It's macro_export, not export_macro https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40487
That said, regressions happen, which is why beta exists. If you find them, please file them!
Re: Announcing Rust 1.16
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although you broke your promise about avoiding breaking changes. I know I know, it wasn't promise and wasn't about breaking changes, it was something else about something else. "The attribute `export_macro` is currently unknown to the compiler" - what a surprise in beta 1.17.
It's macro_export, not export_macro https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40487 That said, regressions happen, which is why beta exists. If you find them, please file them!
It's not in my lib and issue is filled. That said, thanks :)
Re: Announcing Rust 1.16
#48Since Rust people read hn... the version 1.16 is at the bottom of https://thanks.rust-lang.org/, while it should appear before 1.15
Re: Announcing Rust 1.16
#491.16 already! Do they sleep ?
We used a time-based release schedule; each minor version comes out every six weeks. We believe this approach is better for a number of reasons, including quality.
But this is a thing that amazes me: the rust community manage to be incredibly productive while maintaining a culture of rigorous quality. In a world of "move fast and break things" at best and just of "I don't know what I'm doing" at worst I find it fascinating to witness.
Re: Announcing Rust 1.16
#50I am glad that FreeBSD is on the "Tier 2" list of supported platforms [1] but am wondering, is there any way to convince you guys to make it "Tier 1"? If so, how?
I am willing to dedicate some amount of my own time to make it happen but am not convinced that my skills [2] and the amount of time I have available to spend is sufficient to make a difference.