With GPU rendering, you should learn about GPU processing and memory usage too, not that it would matter much for such a use-case.

nvtop is nice for displaying all that info (it’s not nvidia-specific).

Also % CPU usage is not a good metric, especially when most people forget to set CPU frequencies to fixed values before measuring. And heterogenous architectures (e.g. big.LITTLE) make such numbers meaningless anyway (without additional context). But again, none of this really matters in this use-case.

A quick shallow look.

• Avoid single hard paths. Provide fall-backs. Make them all configurable. Use xdg (properly)…etc.
• Avoid .unwrap() or any source of panic!() for non-fatal things that can actually fail.
• Make non strictly necessary fields optional in you model, if that helps.
• Use .filter_map() and .collect() in your parsing code, instead of all the matches and continues in a for loop. You can use .ok()? to early-return with None on errors.
• And finally, since you’re micro-benchmarking, try speedy or borsh instead of bincode, unless you need the serde compat for some reason.

I get it – abstractions are cool. They’re supposed to hide complexity so we can focus on cooler stuff. And Rust loves that idea. Traits, generics, lifetimes – layer upon layer of “don’t worry about it honey.”

That’s such a fundamental misunderstanding of something so basic, that I almost had to stop reading.

I might expect the Rust ecosystem to adopt these new features.

This again points to you maybe not understanding how editions work, or maybe I’m just reading it wrong again. But you “upgrading” has no effect on your dependencies, and vise versa (except indirectly if MSRV is a factor as another user mentioned).

Just upgraded

Weird wording!
Maybe it’s just me, but this may give the impression that it’s something that is strictly needed, or will provide any immediate improvement, which is not the case, unless you’re still actively working on these projects and plan to use/depend on features/behaviors required by the new edition.

The most important part of curl is the library, not the CLI tool. And the TLS backend is very much relevant due to varying features supported, different licenses involved, and varying levels of ease when it comes to building and distribution.

That’s when you’re providing binaries. Otherwise, you would have to be wary of potential compatibility issues with libcurl packages provided by different Linux distributions for example.

See CURLOPT_ECH for a recent and still evolving example of this.

I would move all struct members from Foo<false> into a “new” Foo<true> and return that?

Yes… if you don’t define Drop for Foo.

If you do, then you will have to either use mem::take()/mem::replace() with each field, or if you don’t mind unsafe {}, you can just do a trivial transmute. Justunsafe { transmute(self) } should work.

I’m stating the obvious here, but if you have ownership at the time of conversion, then you can just change the type, you don’t have to use dyn (a la impl Foo<false> { fn into_debug(self) -> Foo<true> {} }). That may require some code restructuring of course.

use-case?

This is neither news*, nor majorly relevant. Having rustc_codegen_gcc as a rustup component is going to be way more relevant, and is much closer to delivery, just to give an example.

* The post itself (not the content of it) appearing on the official blog was sort of pleasantly surprising (brought tears to my eyes, i tell ya). Hopefully that was a result of maturity, rather than external pressure.

Correct link without /edit/: https://github.com/Nutomic/ibis/releases/0.1.2

you’re not supposed to immediately reach for macros

correct

for small things you don’t quite like about the language.

incorrect

Excessive macro use makes it impossible for others (including your future self) to read your code

N/A. the macro above is trivial.

impossible for others to read your code and there’s often good reasons why it’s designed like it is.

fiction

There is a general mechanism in Rust that allows language users to add their own sugar. It’s called macros 😉

macro_rules! keep {
    (let $id:ident = $expr:expr => $($tt:tt)+) => {
        let $id = $expr;
        let $id = $id$($tt)+;
    }
}

fn main() {
    keep!{ let path = std::env::current_dir().unwrap() => .as_path() };
    println!("{path:?}");
}

You can remove let from the macro’s fragment specifier and invocation.

mastering_rust

Maybe wait until you’re actually good at it.

Neither.

• make new() give you a fully valid and usable struct value.
• or use a builder (you can call it something else like Partial/Incomplete/whatever) struct so you can’t accidentally do anything without a fully initialized value.

Maybe you should also use substructs that hold some of the info.

Looks trivial and easy to automate.
I possibly would have done it if they had a test suite.
But unless I didn’t look hard enough, they have no tests at all (other than linting)!

If NULL was a billion dollar mistake, imagine how many billions it’s going to be for AI-generated code.

Maybe ask a web dev community about this.
There could be something better written in Rust.
There could be something better NOT written in Rust.
They should know.

Good. But a lot of us do this already:

[target.x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu]
linker = "clang" # for mold
rustflags = ["-c", "link-arg=-fuse-ld=/usr/bin/mold"]

[target.x86_64-unknown-linux-musl]
rustflags = ["-Z", "gcc-ld=lld"]

I didn’t understand your sentence. But:
Having concerns is valid.
Having them in the context of this story/ad is misplaced.

IBM invested 1B$ in Linux all the way back in year 2000 (imagine how much that is worth with tech inflation), and they did it again years later.

That 1M$ is nothing. It’s not nearly enough to control the Rust foundation for one year, let alone controlling the Rust project as a whole. Calling it a “Vote of Confidence in Rust’s Future” was probably a good-spirited joke from the author, at least I hope it was.

Note that IBM still doesn’t control Linux (even after acquiring RedHat), and we still have no problem calling them evil. Some of us still have no problem calling MS evil either, although many of the new crop of developers won’t, because for them the chance to have the financial privilege of working there someday outweighs any moral considerations. Incidentally, there is a good intersection between this group, and the group that takes moral posturing about whatever in-group approved cause of the month to the maximum. Ironic, isn’t it?