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?

This is effective advertisement, not a donation. A real ad (with a campaign) would probably have cost much more, and wouldn’t continue to be propagated for free months after the ad campaign is over, like this peace of news.

This type of ad is also much harder to filter/block, since not only it appears to be site-native, but also topic-native.

Thunderbird is still going?

What’s next? Rust in Songbird?