5 ms·

The tinfoil hat explanation is that the developer is breaking all projects that depend on the default package manager cargo, forcing them to move to buck or baz

by dcan 3y ago

The tinfoil hat explanation is that the developer is breaking all projects that depend on the default package manager cargo, forcing them to move to buck or bazel - projects that the developer of serde-derive has invested work into. This is not noisy for no reason - the expectation is all dependencies are compiled from source on your computer, and here the developer forces the use of a binary program, with no alternative.

philbo 3y ago
As someone who hasn't used Rust seriously since 2018, I'm tangentially curious what are the improvements (real or perceived) that buck and bazel offer over cargo? I didn't know there were alternative package managers, and cargo always seemed pretty nice to me.
- philbo 3y ago
  Answering my own question, sorry, looks like I may have got the wrong end of the stick here. Bazel and buck seem like language-agnostic build tools, rather than rust-specific package managers?
  - monocasa 3y ago
    > Bazel and buck seem like language-agnostic build tools, rather than rust-specific package managers? Yeah. Bazel is the sanitized version of Google's internal build system for most of their projects (known internally as blaze). Buck is Facebook's equivalent.
- MrJohz 3y ago
  The previous comment is pretty paranoid thinking, so I wouldn't take it seriously. That said, Bazel and Buck are good for handling projects "at scale" (e.g. company wide monorepos at mid-to-large companies), or with a lot of different needs (e.g. sources in C++, Rust, Python, and Javascript that need to be combined together). They're not really an alternative to Cargo, and more the next step up for when Cargo isn't sufficient any more. But because they're dealing with much more complicated problems, they're also more complicated to set up and use, so if you're not running into issues with Cargo, you probably don't need to go in that direction (and possibly never will).

by dcan 3y ago

philbo 3y ago

As someone who hasn't used Rust seriously since 2018, I'm tangentially curious what are the improvements (real or perceived) that buck and bazel offer over cargo? I didn't know there were alternative package managers, and cargo always seemed pretty nice to me.

philbo 3y ago
Answering my own question, sorry, looks like I may have got the wrong end of the stick here. Bazel and buck seem like language-agnostic build tools, rather than rust-specific package managers?
- monocasa 3y ago
  > Bazel and buck seem like language-agnostic build tools, rather than rust-specific package managers? Yeah. Bazel is the sanitized version of Google's internal build system for most of their projects (known internally as blaze). Buck is Facebook's equivalent.
MrJohz 3y ago
The previous comment is pretty paranoid thinking, so I wouldn't take it seriously. That said, Bazel and Buck are good for handling projects "at scale" (e.g. company wide monorepos at mid-to-large companies), or with a lot of different needs (e.g. sources in C++, Rust, Python, and Javascript that need to be combined together). They're not really an alternative to Cargo, and more the next step up for when Cargo isn't sufficient any more. But because they're dealing with much more complicated problems, they're also more complicated to set up and use, so if you're not running into issues with Cargo, you probably don't need to go in that direction (and possibly never will).