4 ms·

Then extrapolate "random guy trying to follow dtolnay's lead."

• IshKebab 3y ago
  Well then complain about that, not this. And anyway it doesn't really matter. As soon as you use anyone's crates you're more or less completely trusting them. It's not difficult to hide malware in a Rust crate even if you don't ship a binary. And... come on. David Tolnay came up with Watt. He's clearly not intending to ship a binary forever - the long term solution is WASM. This author comes across as an annoying naysayer - everything is impossible, even things that have already been done like WASI.
  • est31 3y ago
    wasm is also a binary format, and I wouldn't like it to be included into the .crate file either. The .crate files should ideally only include source code, to preserve the source first nature of crates.io (even if it's never been officially confirmed). Rustdoc is also automatically built by docs.rs and nobody distributes it in their .crate file. I think the same should be done for wasm proc macros, too: they should be built by public infrastructure, and then people can opt into using binaries provided by that infrastructure to do their development, and if they want also opt towards using native binaries instead of wasm. But the binaries, including wasm, should only be a cache.
    • IshKebab 3y ago
      > I think the same should be done for wasm proc macros, too: they should be built by public infrastructure, and then people can opt into using binaries provided by that infrastructure to do their development That's obviously how it would work. Read dtonlay's proposal. Crates.io would compile the WASM.
      • est31 3y ago
        Only as a verification step though, not to obtain the actual binary, which will be included in the .crate package, where it IMO should not be put.