2 ms·

It's not that delicate of a balance. Async is the only real problem here where some very fundamental behavior (i/o) is redefined by packages in the ecosystem du

by duped 4y ago

It's not that delicate of a balance. Async is the only real problem here where some very fundamental behavior (i/o) is redefined by packages in the ecosystem due to some quirks about how async/await works in Rust without a runtime in std. Frankly I don't see what "annexes" would buy the Rust ecosystem. You don't pay for what you don't use to begin with, and there's zero advantage to multiple implementations of the standard library. That's an antifeature in my opinion. > If I select a given crate today for a given common task, will the crate still be around and maintained in three years? Will I need to rewrite my project to use the latest crate du jour? The same is true in any ecosystem. How likely is your project to exist in three years, and how much would it cost to replace the dependency if it gets deprecated? It's just not that high of a risk to worry about.

thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
>> Frankly I don't see what "annexes" would buy the Rust ecosystem. You don't pay for what you don't use to begin with, and there's zero advantage to multiple implementations of the standard library. That's an antifeature in my opinion. I am not talking about multiple implementations of the standard library, but rather, optional groupings of traits for common tasks. For example, could the community design / define traits for an asynchronous programming runtime? >> The same is true in any ecosystem. How likely is your project to exist in three years, and how much would it cost to replace the dependency if it gets deprecated? It's just not that high of a risk to worry about. The company I work for supports products that have lifetimes measured in decades. I would love for us to use Rust, but the management will not approve Rust because of how unstable the ecosystem is. Updating products because the libraries we rely on are no longer maintained would cost time and money that could be spent in ways that would add value that our customers could appreciate.

by duped 4y ago

thesuperbigfrog 4y ago

>> Frankly I don't see what "annexes" would buy the Rust ecosystem. You don't pay for what you don't use to begin with, and there's zero advantage to multiple implementations of the standard library. That's an antifeature in my opinion. I am not talking about multiple implementations of the standard library, but rather, optional groupings of traits for common tasks. For example, could the community design / define traits for an asynchronous programming runtime? >> The same is true in any ecosystem. How likely is your project to exist in three years, and how much would it cost to replace the dependency if it gets deprecated? It's just not that high of a risk to worry about. The company I work for supports products that have lifetimes measured in decades. I would love for us to use Rust, but the management will not approve Rust because of how unstable the ecosystem is. Updating products because the libraries we rely on are no longer maintained would cost time and money that could be spent in ways that would add value that our customers could appreciate.