r/rust • • 1d ago

🛠️ project Rust Glancer 0.3: new trait solver and other goodies

https://rust-glancer.github.io/blog/0-3-0/
98 Upvotes

21 comments sorted by

51

u/popzxc 1d ago

As usual, English is not my native language and I don't use LLMs for writing, so sorry for everything that looks weird in the post.

This release is, on one hand, is less coherent in terms of improvements than the previous one, but oh boy these were a bunch of big undertakings. I'm very happy with the current state of the project and excited for the future releases.

Hope that y'all like it.

14

u/TRKlausss 22h ago

> As usual, English is not my native language and I don’t use LLMs for writing, so sorry for everything that looks weird in the post.

What a sad internet it has become, where people have to apologize for not knowing a language perfectly, AND not using LLMs to improve the text.

Mate, no need to, great that you put the effort on it instead of being a third-party thinker <3

33

u/popzxc 1d ago

Also, I hope this post doesn't break the new subreddit rules. The project is older than 4 months, directly related to the language itself, has real users, and previous announcements were positively discussed here.

66

u/matthieum [he/him] 1d ago

Actually it does... because I forgot about tooling.

The No More Code Dump only considers Rust binaries & Rust libraries, and says no to Rust binaries, and therefore to Rust Glancer.

The reasoning behind the rules, is that Rust binaries are typically useless to Rust developers. There may be hidden nuggets in them, but unless the author points them out, who wants to dive in 1000s of lines of code in the hope to find one lone nugget (or more likely, to find nothing)?

This... emphatically fails to consider the case where the Rust binary is a Rust development tool. At which point the fact that it's written in Rust is NOT the important point, the important point is that the tool is useful to Rust developers.

It's a good thing the rules are enforced by humans, rather than computers :)

14

u/popzxc 1d ago

Indeed!

7

u/U007D rust · twir · bool_ext · srug 1d ago

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for the clearly considerable thought that has gone into the new policy.  I think the quality of engagement has improved immensely since the new policy went into effect.  And I love that you're even still thinking about how to improve it.  Hats off, thank you again.

0

u/TRKlausss 22h ago

Would then an amendment to the rules considering this point be carried out?

2

u/matthieum [he/him] 14h ago

Yes, definitely needed :)

I also need to transcribe this rule into the Wiki rules.

All I need is to find some time to do so, hopefully over the week-end.

2

u/TRKlausss 14h ago

Yeah I feel you. I got a kid under one year. No rush, just wanted to get a feel on whether there is a process, a cooldown, etc.

2

u/matthieum [he/him] 13h ago

Oh! Under one is tough, hang on! It gets better!

(Until they go to nursery/pre-school for the first time...)

1

u/TRKlausss 12h ago

And then it’s Petri dish time!

11

u/crimsonscarf 1d ago

Hard to put my finger on it, but even with the LLM-isms, the blog post still feels like a lot of effort was put into communicating well with others.

So, nice job OP. I hope you keep at it, and keep honing your skills.

24

u/popzxc 1d ago

Thanks!

Though could you clarify which LLM-isms have you seen? The post (the same as other posts in the blogs) is 100% hand-written. If you're talking about em dashes, then these are handwritten by manually typing two dashes, as I've done for years, and I won't let LLMs claim my two dashes! :)

Well, or maybe I've talked to LLMs so much that I started writing as one, in which case I'd still love to learn which patterns I should self-fix.

15

u/timvinc 1d ago

Hello friend and fellow em-dasher. I stand in solidarity with you :D

1

u/crimsonscarf 1d ago

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you used an LLM to write the post!

The post does have double-dashes, and sometimes uses short snippy statements like "That's the design I ended up with, and it worked fairly well." LLMs love statements like that. It doesn't mean it's bad writing, just something I've learned to expect when reading LLM output, and I notice that they get used more often by people who spend a lot of time working with LLMs.

That said, you don't over use either of those patterns, and maybe you even would have written like that anyway.

Still, my core point was that with your disclaimer of not having English as your first language, and using LLMs often, your writing feels very human and natural.

3

u/popzxc 1d ago

Ah, I see. Thank you once again!

14

u/sasik520 1d ago

that's a perfect example of r/rust ai-paranoia. It went way too far.

-1

u/crimsonscarf 1d ago

AI paranoia? Did you reply to the wrong person?

7

u/sasik520 1d ago

I referred to you seeing "llm-isms" in a post that autor explicitly says is hand-written.

2

u/InternationalFee3911 14h ago

Highlighting code in doc comments is a must have. It’s also a double edged sword, as it makes it much harder to see at a glance what is real code. I’d want a different background colour for doc comments. But last time I checked it didn’t seem possible with VS code & RA.

1

u/popzxc 13h ago

Yup, LSP doesn't give much tools to do that, unfortunately.