- Don’t use
"*"
dep version requirements. - Add
Cargo.lock
to version control. - Why read to string if you’re going to base64-encode and use
Vec<u8>
later anyway?
"*"
dep version requirements.Cargo.lock
to version control.Vec<u8>
later anyway?Here is an originally random list (using cargo tree --prefix=depth
) with some very loose logical grouping. Wide-scoped and well-known crates removed (some remaining are probably still known by most).
mime data-encoding percent-encoding textwrap unescape unicode-width scraper
arrayvec bimap bstr enum-iterator os_str_bytes pretty_assertions paste
clap_complete console indicatif shlex
lz4_flex mpeg2ts roxmltree speedy
aes base64 hex cbc sha1 sha2 rsa
reverse_geocoder trust-dns-resolver
signal-hook signal-hook-tokio
blocking
fs2
semver
snmalloc-rs
My quick notes which are tailored to beginners:
Option::ok_or_else()
and Result::map_err()
instead of let .. else
.let .. else
didn’t always exist. And you might find that some old timers are slightly triggered by it.Option
s as iterators (yes Option
s are iterators).?
operator and the Try
traitlet headers: HashMap = header_pairs
.iter()
.map(|line| line.split_once(":").unwrap())
.map(|(k, v)| (k.trim().to_string(), v.trim().to_string()))
.collect();
(Borken sanitization will probably butcher this code, good thing the problem will be gone in Lemmy 0.19)
Three tips here:
headers
will be returned as a struct field, the type of which is already known.collect()
itself. That may prove useful in other scenarios.Result
/Option
if the iterator items are Result
s/Option
s. So that .unwrap()
is not an ergonomic necessity 😉.into()
or .to_owned()
for &str => String
conversions.
http
crate is the compatibility layer used HTTP rust implementations. Check it out and maybe incorporate it into your
experimental/educational code.Alright, I will stop myself here.
Broken input sanitization probably.
Issue will thankfully no longer exist in the next lemmy release.
lemmy deleted everything between the “less than” character and “>”.
Lemmy also escaped the ampersands in their comment’s link 😉
Isn’t broken sanitization great!
Next Day Edit: Sorry. Forgot to use my Canadian Aboriginal syllabics again. Because apparently it’s too hard to admit HTML-sanitizing source markdown was wrong!
One thing that irks me in these articles is gauging the opinion of the “Rust community” through Reddit/HN/Lemmy😉/blogs… etc. I don’t think I’d be way off the mark when I say that these platforms mostly collectively reflect the thoughts of junior Rustaceans, or non-Rustaceans experimenting with Rust, with the latter being the loudest, especially if they are struggling with it!
And I disagree with the argument that poor standard library support is the major issue, although I myself had that thought before. It’s definitely current lack of language features that do introduce some annoyances. I do agree however that implicit coloring is not the answer (or an answer I want to ever see).
Take this simple code I was writing today. Ideally, I would have liked to write it in functional style:
async fn some_fn(&self) -> OptionᐸMyResᐸVecᐸu8ᐳᐳᐳ {
(bool_cond).then(|| async {
// ...
// res_op1().await?;
// res_op2().await?;
// ...
Ok(bytes)
})
}
But this of course doesn’t work because of the opaque type of the async block. Is that a serious hurdle? Obviously, it’s not:
async fn some_fn(&self) -> OptionᐸMyResᐸVecᐸu8ᐳᐳᐳ {
if !bool_cond {
return None;
}
let res = || async {
// ...
// res_op1()?;
// res_op2()?;
// ...
Ok(bytes)
};
Some(res().await)
}
And done. A productive Rustacean is hardly wasting time on this.
Okay, bool::then()
is not the best example. I’m just show-casing that it’s current language limitations, not stdlib ones, that are behind the odd async annoyance encountered. And the solution, I would argue, does not have to come in the form of implicit coloring.
Practically speaking, you don’t have to.
Your executor of choice should be doing tokio
compat for you, one way or another, so you don’t have to worry about it (e.g. async-global-executor with the tokio
feature).
async-std
is dead.
exa
(which OP’s readme says eza
is built on) supports creation times. Actual creation time (the “Birth” line in stat
output), not ctime
.
I would bad mouth Axum and Actix just because of the overhype. But then, the latter is powering this very platform, and the former is used in the federation crate examples 😉
So let me just say that I tried poem
and it got the job done for me. Rusty API. Decent documentation. And everything is in one crate. No books, extension crates, and tower
s of abstractions needed.
I try to avoid tokio
stuff in general for the same reason, although a compatible executor is unfortunately often required.
From your list, I use bat
, exa
and rg
.
delta (sometimes packaged as git-delta
) deserves a mention. I use it with this git configuration:
[core]
# --inspect-raw-lines=false fixes issue where some added lines appear in bold blue without green background
# default minus-style is 'normal auto'
pager = "delta --inspect-raw-lines=false --minus-style='syntax #400000' --plus-style='syntax #004000' --minus-emph-style='normal #a00000' --plus-emph-style='normal #00a000' --line-buffer-size=48 --max-line-distance=0.8"
[interactive]
diffFilter = "delta --inspect-raw-lines=false --color-only --minus-style='syntax #400000' --plus-style='syntax #004000' --minus-emph-style='normal #a00000' --plus-emph-style='normal #00a000' --line-buffer-size=48 --max-line-distance=0.8"
[delta]
navigate = true # use n and N to move between diff sections
light = false # set to true if you're in a terminal w/ a light background color (e.g. the default macOS terminal)
[merge]
conflictstyle = diff3
Still on 0.17.4 btw.
--all-features
doesn’t work with that particular crate because two of the features conflict with each other. The features list in my command is the one used for docs.rs from the crate’s Cargo.toml
.
are there any hurdles or other good reasons to not just adding this to every create?
I’m no expert. But my guess would be that many crate authors may simply not be aware of this feature. It wasn’t always there, and it’s still unstable. You would have to reach the “Unstable features” page of the rustdoc book to know about it.
Or maybe some know about it, but don’t want to use an unstable feature, or are just waiting for it to possibly automatically work without any modifications.
Of course, I would assume none of this applies to the embassy
devs. That Cargo.toml
file has a flavors
field, which is something I’ve never seen before 😉 So, I’m assuming they are way more knowledgable (and up-to-date) about the Rust ecosystem than me.
So, this is being worked on. But for now, that crate needs this line in lib.rs
#![cfg_attr(docsrs, feature(doc_auto_cfg))]
And this line in Cargo.toml
’s [
section: ]
rustdoc-args = ["--cfg", "docsrs"]
With these changes, feature gating will be displayed in the docs.
To replicate this locally:
RUSTDOCFLAGS='--cfg docsrs' cargo doc --features=nightly,defmt,pender-callback,arch-cortex-m,executor-thread,executor-interrupt
I constantly seem to include something from the docs, only to be told by the compiler that it does not exist, and then I have to open the source for the create to figure out if it’s hidden behind a feature flag.
As others mentioned, the situation is not perfect. And you may need to check Cargo.toml
. Maybe even the source.
But as for the quoted part above, the docs should definitely indicate if a part of the API is behind a feature. Let’s take rustix
as an example.
Here is the module list:
Here is the view from inside a module:
Here is the view from a function page:
This is also true for platform support. Take this extension trait from std
:
Now, it’s true that one could be navigating to method docs in the middle of a long doc page, where those indicators at the top may be missed. But that’s a UI issue. And it could be argued that repeating those indicators over and over would introduce too much clutter.
Note: the ᐸᐳ characters used below are Canadian Aboriginal syllabics because Lemmy devs haven’t fixed broken input sanitization yet.
Well, getters are not an official concept in Rust. You can do whatever works best in your case.
Just worth pointing out that a method with a return value of OptionᐸVecᐸStringᐳᐳ
wouldn’t be really a getter, as you must be constructing values, or moving ownership, or cloning. None of these actions conceptually belong to a getter.
Also, you should be clear on the what the Option
abstraction means. Does it mean the vector is empty? Does it mean the vector does not exist or some sort of null (FFI ore serialization contexts)? And make sure the code does what you expect it to do.
Note: the ᐸᐳ
characters used below are Canadian Aboriginal syllabics because Lemmy devs haven’t fixed broken input sanitization yet.
A vec and a string are basically the same thing (a series of bytes)
Everything is a series of bytes! I thought you were going to mention that both are fat pointers. But that “series of bytes” description is quite weird.
This makes handling it much easier because you can still iterate over it
This is not a valid consideration/objection, as Option
s are iterable and you can flatten them:
fn main() {
let v = vec![1,2,3];
for n in Some(&v).into_iter().flatten() {
eprintln!("{n}");
}
for n in None::ᐸ&Vecᐸi32ᐳᐳ.into_iter().flatten() {
eprintln!("{n}");
}
}
This might involve the compiler making an allocation of an empty array but most of them (gcc, ghc) will now what you are doing and optimize the null check on the empty array to a bool check
This paragraph appears to be out of place in the context of a Rust discussion.
Regarding
Cargo.lock
, the recommendation always was to include it in version control for application/binary crates, but not library ones. But tendencies changed over time to include it even for libraries. If arust-toolchain
file is tracked by version control, and is pinned to a specific stable release, thenCargo.lock
should definitely be tracked too [1][2].It’s strictly more information tracked, so there is no logical reason not to include it. There was this concern about people not being aware of
--locked
not being the default behaviour ofcargo install
, giving a false sense of security/reliability/reproducibility. But “false sense” is never a good technical argument in my book.Anyway, your crate is an application/binary one. And if you were to not change the
"*"
dependency version requirement, then it is almost guaranteed that building your crate will break in the future without trackingCargo.lock
;)