3 ms·

Wrt. what rust needs: A) I don't think this is needed you could just pin a older rust version. But if it's needed we are not quite there yet. B) I think that

Wrt. what rust needs: A) I don't think this is needed you could just pin a older rust version. But if it's needed we are not quite there yet. B) I think that point has been meet. c) Depending on the definition of "obscure" this has been meet, but given that sqlite only requires very little to make it run I guess the for the appropriate definition of "obscure" it is not fulfilled quite yet. D) This still needs a lot of work even just for line coverage the tooling isn't quite up to my standards tbh.. While my standards are pretty high, I fear the sqlite standards might be even higher. E) It's kinda meet but needs a bit more time to mature. F) I think this was more or less already meet in 2017, if not then it's by now.

zinekeller 5y ago
> A) I don't think this is needed you could just pin a older rust version. But if it's needed we are not quite there yet. The problem I think is that SQLite is also used in embedded systems, they need to be predictable (for example, for all of its flaws C89 is still used in SQLite). So unless that there is a subset that is that stable, they won't move yet.
- dathinab 5y ago
  > So unless that there is a subset that is that stable, This is kinda a point of rust that every compiler can compile code of all previous versions up to rustc 1.0.0.(Sure it isn't perfect, there was some fallout especially during the earlier rust days.) So you could require language/library compatibility with e.g. 1.55 while any compiler >=1.55 _should_ be usable/compatible for building it. (You still would need the 1.55 compiler for development to make sure you stay compatible.) Now I guess there are still problems with that I guess and what they would like is probably some form of rust LTS version. Theoretically there is little problem with bumping the minimal rust version every year or so (due to the compatibility guarantees) BUT on embedded you might not have "proper" upstream LLVM support which would mean that when rust bumps LLVM you might lose rust support, I guess.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    I'm referring, of course, to those embedded versions. I've dabbled into Rust and Go, and they are certainly nicer than C in non-trivial programming, but knowing how slow everyone in industrial systems adopt something, I'm not holding my breath. Maybe a SQLite for "normal" applications (the real-world definition, not apps)?

zinekeller 5y ago

> A) I don't think this is needed you could just pin a older rust version. But if it's needed we are not quite there yet. The problem I think is that SQLite is also used in embedded systems, they need to be predictable (for example, for all of its flaws C89 is still used in SQLite). So unless that there is a subset that is that stable, they won't move yet.

dathinab 5y ago
> So unless that there is a subset that is that stable, This is kinda a point of rust that every compiler can compile code of all previous versions up to rustc 1.0.0.(Sure it isn't perfect, there was some fallout especially during the earlier rust days.) So you could require language/library compatibility with e.g. 1.55 while any compiler >=1.55 _should_ be usable/compatible for building it. (You still would need the 1.55 compiler for development to make sure you stay compatible.) Now I guess there are still problems with that I guess and what they would like is probably some form of rust LTS version. Theoretically there is little problem with bumping the minimal rust version every year or so (due to the compatibility guarantees) BUT on embedded you might not have "proper" upstream LLVM support which would mean that when rust bumps LLVM you might lose rust support, I guess.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  I'm referring, of course, to those embedded versions. I've dabbled into Rust and Go, and they are certainly nicer than C in non-trivial programming, but knowing how slow everyone in industrial systems adopt something, I'm not holding my breath. Maybe a SQLite for "normal" applications (the real-world definition, not apps)?