33 ms·

(I am on the Rust libs-api team. I say "we" below, but I didn't do any of the amazing new range type work.) > Why replace the already existing std::range in-pl

(I am on the Rust libs-api team. I say "we" below, but I didn't do any of the amazing new range type work.) > Why replace the already existing std::range in-place with the new version We didn't. `std::range` is new. The existing range types have always been in `std::ops`. They have to stay there because we don't have a way of resolving paths in an edition dependent way. See: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3550-new-range.html#new-paths https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3550-new-range.html#new-pat... > The other day there was some talking about Go's stdlib around here, and I truly believe they got it much better thought out. I used Go for over a decade and loved every minute of it. As someone with significant API design experience in both Go and Rust, Go has it way easier. I don't want to go into a big long diatribe about it, but the space in which Rust operates means that getting APIs correct in a way that lasts forever is harder. To a first approximation, this is a result of project goals (hand wavy: being able to write code while thinking about "what I want the CPU to do") and expressive power provided by the language. Go added generics after I mostly stopped using it, but even with that, there are considerable differences in expressive power that translate directly into more complex APIs. Plus, Rust started with Cargo. Go didn't get "proper" package management until much later. The promise (and one that it has fulfilled ten-fold) was precisely that Rust's standard library could be "small" and gaps could be filled by ecosystem crates that can use semver incompatible changes to evolve when necessary. (My intent is for the above to be mostly descriptive. I'm not trying to cast shade on Go here. The Rust and Go projects have different goals that they optimize for. To be prescriptive: Go does an excellent job of optimizing for their goals IMO. And also, IMO, to be frank, I would consider this a feature of Go that it has over Rust. Having batteries in std is great. I'd love to have more. It's just fucking hard in the Rust world. That's not to minimize and say Go has it easy... But, well, okay. I'll stop hedging here. Lol.)

honr 5mo ago
I believe by a wide margin the most significant long term problem with rust is lack of a good and comprehensive standard library, or a FEW set of crates that provides a really good set. We are in the age of supply chain risks and I personally know many great engineers who shun languages whose community / library providers don't take this problem with utmost care. At this point in time, rust is being treated like nodejs. That is not fair to rust, but that is the reality of the current situation. Go, on the other hand took simplicity as a major goal, and while not the most efficient or expressive language out there, that single goal is paying massive dividents. The good news is, all this means, is that rust can / will be a lot more serious when someone, possibly a big corporation with deep pockets to maintain this until a critical mass has formed, develops and maintains a golang-style standard library. It can be like C++'s in which the initial std lib was crap compared to what it is now. But people ended up using and eventually evolving the language and the std lib together. We are missing that kind of library at the moment.
- wahern 5mo ago
  Or just make it more difficult to squat obvious namespaces, and add an identity management system (like PGP Web of Trust, but simpler) so you can limit yourself to trusted packages, e.g. packages vouched by your preferred set of root signers who publish compilations of trusted publisher keys. Expecting a kitchen sink approach for a low-level language can't work out. In low level systems languages your algorithms and interfaces are (or should be) much more tightly bound to specific solutions. It's much easier for abstraction to become excessive and counterproductive.
  - pjmlp 5mo ago
    It worked well for C++ during its first decade, each compiler had quite nice frameworks with kitchen sink approach. It went out of favour since the 2000's, because of the raise of ecosystems like Java and .NET, followed by everyone with exception of Microsoft, going for other systems programming languages on their desktop and mobile OS platforms. Also the consequence that we eventually got reduced to GCC, clang, and MSVC, and only one of them cares about frameworks. The other exception being C++ Builder, but that one is largely ignored outside big corporations.
    - honr 5mo ago
      C++ (the language) and its extreme complexities (each perhaps added for a good reason at the time, and then held together with backward compatibility as glue) reduced itself to gcc and clang. Not the std lib. The std lib is, de facto, removing some of the complexity. Recent C++, together with a couple of major libraries, and with a good style guide and a matching lint (that removes / restricts many footguns) is far better than it was, 15-20 years ago. While it is not exactly cool, it can be totally bearable. My point is the current success can be "copied over" to rust by cloning (or otherwise obtaining) a good base std lib, and a few domain specific comprehensive libraries. That doesn't even need to affect the existing ecosystem. There can be several parallel ecosystems and each one can be relatively thriving (one doing nodejs style YOLO, one doing enterprise extreme best-practices, one doing efficient embedded or OS level work, etc.). However, apart from the nodejs style community, the rest will benefit [heavily] from a base library that is well designed and NOT subject to change. Even a travesty such as a vibe-cloned golang std lib would be an improvement over the current situation.

honr 5mo ago

I believe by a wide margin the most significant long term problem with rust is lack of a good and comprehensive standard library, or a FEW set of crates that provides a really good set. We are in the age of supply chain risks and I personally know many great engineers who shun languages whose community / library providers don't take this problem with utmost care. At this point in time, rust is being treated like nodejs. That is not fair to rust, but that is the reality of the current situation. Go, on the other hand took simplicity as a major goal, and while not the most efficient or expressive language out there, that single goal is paying massive dividents. The good news is, all this means, is that rust can / will be a lot more serious when someone, possibly a big corporation with deep pockets to maintain this until a critical mass has formed, develops and maintains a golang-style standard library. It can be like C++'s in which the initial std lib was crap compared to what it is now. But people ended up using and eventually evolving the language and the std lib together. We are missing that kind of library at the moment.

wahern 5mo ago
Or just make it more difficult to squat obvious namespaces, and add an identity management system (like PGP Web of Trust, but simpler) so you can limit yourself to trusted packages, e.g. packages vouched by your preferred set of root signers who publish compilations of trusted publisher keys. Expecting a kitchen sink approach for a low-level language can't work out. In low level systems languages your algorithms and interfaces are (or should be) much more tightly bound to specific solutions. It's much easier for abstraction to become excessive and counterproductive.
- pjmlp 5mo ago
  It worked well for C++ during its first decade, each compiler had quite nice frameworks with kitchen sink approach. It went out of favour since the 2000's, because of the raise of ecosystems like Java and .NET, followed by everyone with exception of Microsoft, going for other systems programming languages on their desktop and mobile OS platforms. Also the consequence that we eventually got reduced to GCC, clang, and MSVC, and only one of them cares about frameworks. The other exception being C++ Builder, but that one is largely ignored outside big corporations.
  - honr 5mo ago
    C++ (the language) and its extreme complexities (each perhaps added for a good reason at the time, and then held together with backward compatibility as glue) reduced itself to gcc and clang. Not the std lib. The std lib is, de facto, removing some of the complexity. Recent C++, together with a couple of major libraries, and with a good style guide and a matching lint (that removes / restricts many footguns) is far better than it was, 15-20 years ago. While it is not exactly cool, it can be totally bearable. My point is the current success can be "copied over" to rust by cloning (or otherwise obtaining) a good base std lib, and a few domain specific comprehensive libraries. That doesn't even need to affect the existing ecosystem. There can be several parallel ecosystems and each one can be relatively thriving (one doing nodejs style YOLO, one doing enterprise extreme best-practices, one doing efficient embedded or OS level work, etc.). However, apart from the nodejs style community, the rest will benefit [heavily] from a base library that is well designed and NOT subject to change. Even a travesty such as a vibe-cloned golang std lib would be an improvement over the current situation.