Or to avoid ad hominem accusations:
No code. Don’t Care.

And no benchmarks either. That intro about stack vs. heap also reads like someone who never went further than sophomore-level knowledge, or someone explaining things to kids.

Not my area of expertise, but egui may suit your use-case better than the usual candidates.

As a Rust dev who has to target Windows, more support for Rust from MS is very relevant and important to me.

“Target Windows” presumably doesn’t involve writing drivers. How would WDK FFI wrappers help you exactly in that context, and what non-trivial support is MS actually providing?

Maybe you mistook this community for !opensource@programming.dev?

No, I didn’t. Any language community can easily become a corpo spam one if you don’t put some rules in place to filter direct and indirect ads.

Let’s analyze this “news” story as an example:

• Microsoft published trivial unsafe NDK FFI wrappers and tooling awhile ago (not new, not impressive, not news).
• Microsoft publishes an ad in their blog mentioning the published wrappers, and using a lot of marketing talk, with a random trivial LookasideList sample wrapper sandwiched in between. The real LookasideList implementation is of course neither available, nor is it implemented in Rust (If it was, you would be going through two layers of FFI to connect Rust to Rust, which would be even more stupid). Below that random sample code is this note:

Though we believe this wrapper to be sound for the purposes of the team that developed it, it requires further review and testing before we can publish it as the “official” wrapper for these APIs. Thus the above should be considered a possible look at what Rust abstractions for our kernel mode might look like, and not final code.

In the long term, as we make design decisions and finalize our wrappers, our intent is to publish these wrapper crates on crates.io as first-class members of the Rust ecosystem.

• Then independent “news” sites pick up on these low-in-technical-substance ads, and consume the well crafted marketing section titles like “The next steps: going from unsafe Rust to safe Rust”. So we end up with the title here “Microsoft is turning Rust into a first-class language for developing secure Windows drivers”. When in reality, almost literally nothing happened (yet). And even the premise and promise is all about making safer bindings to (presumably) non-Rust code we will never see.

For me, corpo ads with no “relevant” code is boring (or in this case, no new code at all, unless you count the sample list binding). And I can’t imagine I’m alone here.

For me, posting every single pull request from the Asterinas repo would be infinitely more interesting, and infinitely more relevant.

Adding rust FFI bindings to a part of a closed-source system doesn’t magically make anything “secure”.

And ads shouldn’t be allowed here, unless real fully functional code (not just bindings) is made available. Such ads should go to !technology@programming.dev or wherever.

Only looked at the Cargo.toml files.

• (pet peeve) Considering there is (presumably) no compatibility concerns, why not use an efficient binary format instead of JSON?
• Not checking in Cargo.lock files, and using = dependency versions for Phoenix_Desktop, is a bit odd!

People stopped taking Brian seriously when he helped create Go. That was pre-Rust.

Even the “talking points” here seem to be re-used from “Go vs. X” ones. Also, his experience speaks of someone who only tried Rust pre-v1.0.

Anyone who actually knows Rust, anti- or pro-, knows that what he said (partially in jest) is factually wrong.

Feel free to prove otherwise, especially the part about the performance of Rust programs. Don’t be surprised if he simply didn’t pass --release to cargo build, a common pitfall for someone in the “hello world” stage of trying Rust.

And this is why appeal to authority was never more fallacious, considering we live in a world where Dunning-Kruger is a universal reality.

What’s wrong with it

• It’s a random crate no one uses.
• You’re not even really “using” it. You are just importing a re-export of reqwest, which is what I expected you to immediately notice after I brought it into attention. You can obviously just remove it and use reqwest directly.
• Still, trusting a re-export is not a trivial matter. The random author of the no-name crate could replace the original reqwest with something malicious, or bad in some other way, in a v0.1.1 release. That (theoretical) release will be picked up after a cargo update call, or when Cargo.lock is not checked, which is the case by default with libraries.

How did you find that crate?
Why do you think you need it?

Can you explain the rust-fetch dependency?

Why Peter Thiel though?

It was a (failed) joke about your user-name.

How much “vibe coding” is involved?

And are you Peter Thiel by any chance 😉

You are in a thread where a user is having a problem because of the push for flatpaks, and because of some distros like Fedora crippling their packages and providing objectively worse alternatives on purpose (because they don’t want to risk RH IBM getting sued). If the user was using some sane community distro like Arch, the user would have never come to realize that such unnecessary issues even exist.

As for flatpak hate specifically, see my ramblings here.

Users are better off using a “freeworld” ffmpeg package, or not using Fedora at all. The cisco decoder is shit.

your life will be better if you stop using both flatpaks and openh264.