3 ms·
I agree that no_std is incredible. I really want to see more crates embrace it and encapsulate their no_std logic away from their standard logic. I very often s
by mooman219 5y ago
I agree that no_std is incredible. I really want to see more crates embrace it and encapsulate their no_std logic away from their standard logic. I very often see crates that are like 95% of the way to no_std but then choose to bundle some standard only features without flagging them.
I wrote fontdue [0] (which is very incomplete spec wise) because there just wasn't another font library that was no_std at that time. It felt like the existing libraries were in an arms race for gpu caches and bundling file loading. Like if I wanted to commit to a running on a platform I'd do the sane thing and use harfbuzz or the platform APIs.
It's very naive because I don't understand all of the complexity, but I'd really like to see the standard library being easier to piecewise implement from crates. Like a standard trait library and a standard implementation library for those traits.
[0] https://github.com/mooman219/fontdue https://github.com/mooman219/fontdue
- pas 5y ago> Like a standard trait library and a standard implementation library for those traits. This sounds like a very good idea. (The thinness of the std future API paved the way for multiple async runtimes. And sowed confusion! evil laugh But seriously, having a high throughput optimized runtime like Tokio and a size optimized like smol is a good thing.) But a very much non trivial amount of work. Has this been discussed on internals?