That's like the most trivial of theories one can test for.

Save response time every minute

while true; do /usr/bin/time -f "%e `date`" dig '@1.1.1.1' +noall programming.dev &>>/tmp/dns_clf_perf.txt; sleep 60; done

Then after a while (maybe a couple of days), check the worst numbers:

sort -n /tmp/dns_clf_perf.txt |tail

Run the same script with a different DNS server at the same time, and compare numbers.

Dates included in case there are any patterns regarding the time of day/week.

making points that aren’t even particularly that new.

(putting my Rust historian hat on)

Even the name stdx[1][2] is not original.

It was one of multiple attempts to officially or semi-officially present a curated a list of crates. Thankfully, all these attempts failed, as the larger community pushed against them, and more relevantly, as the swarm refused to circle around any of them.

This reminds of a little-known and long-forgotten demo tool named cargo-esr[1][2]. But it's not the tool, but the events it was supposedly created as a response to that is worth a historical mention, namely these blog posts[1][2], and the commotion that followed them[1][2][3][4].

For those who were not around back then, there was an obscure crate named mio, created by an obscure developer named Carl Lerche, that was like the libevent/libuv equivalent for Rust. mio was so obscure I actually knew it existed before Rust even hit v1.0. Carl continued to do more obscure things like tokio, whatever that is.

So, the argument was that there was absolutely no way whatsoever that one could figure out they needed to depend on mio for a good event loop interface. It was totally an insurmountable task!

That was the circus, and "no clown left behind" was the mindset, that gave birth to all these std-extending attempts.

So, let's fast forward a bit. NTPsec didn't actually get (re)written in go, and ended up being a trimming, hardening, and improving job on the original C impl. The security improvements were a huge success! Just the odd vulnerability here and there. You know, stuff like NULL dereferences, buffer over-reads, out-of-bounds writes, the kind of semantic errors Rust famously doesn't protect from 🙂

To be fair, I'm not aware of any big NTP implementations written in Rust popping up around that time either. But we do finally have the now-funded ntpd-rs effort progressing nicely.

And on the crates objective metrics front, kornel of lib.rs fame, started and continues to collect A LOT of them for his service. Although, he and lib.rs are self-admittedly NOT opinion-free.

DISCLAIMER: I didn't even visit OP's link.

why gcc couldnt do this automatically? i mean its supposed to do this right?

Because gcc is a compiler, not a build tool.

Maybe you come from a language where the two tasks are combined, but that's not the case here.

and another important issue that clang ls (language server) showed the same error? i thought fixing this would fix that too, but that isnt the case here.

For the same reason stated above, clangd needs to know how you build your code. This is done via a JSON file called compile_commands.json.

In your trivial case, running this should be enough:

clang -MJ- main.c `pkg-config --cflags --libs dbus-1` > compile_commands.json

% pkg-config --cflags dbus-1
-I/usr/include/dbus-1.0 -I/usr/lib/dbus-1.0/include
% pkg-config  --libs dbus-1
-ldbus-1

gcc main.c `pkg-config --cflags --libs dbus-1`

You don't need to link against the library yet, but you will.

Linking might become a separate step when you have multiple files, not just main.

how does that help when I’m searching a non-Rust project via the GitHub web search interface

Fair.
But you are writing a comment under a topic regarding a Rust-flavored IDE, posted to a Rust community. With neither the IDE nor Rust involved, your quoted problem statement is 100% off-topic.

There is a YouTube video in Servo's homepage.
The first minutes of that video answer your question.

A reminder that the Servo project has resumed active development since the start of 2023, and is making good progress every month.

If you're looking for a serious in-progress effort to create a new open, safe, performant, independent, and fully-featured web engine, that's the one you should be keeping an eye on.

It won't be easy trying to catch up to continuously evolving and changing web standards, but that's the only effort with a chance.

I for one am happy we’re getting an alternative to the Chrome/Firefox duality we’re stuck with.

Anyone serious about that would be sending their money towards Servo, which resumed active development since the start of 2023, and is making good progress every month.

I would say nothing but "Good Luck" to other from-scratch efforts, but It's hard not to see them as memes with small cultist followings living on hope and hype.

My post was a showcase of why there is no substitute for knowing your tools properly, and how when you know them properly, you will never have to wait for 5 minutes, let alone 5 years, for anything, because you never used or needed to use an IDE anyway.

This applies universally. No minimum smartness or specialness scores required.

Not sure how what I write is this confusing to you.

• Tests don't necessarily live in paths containing test.
• Code in paths containing test is not necessarily all tests.
• cargo expand gives you options for correctly and coherently expanding Rust code, and doesn't expand tests by default.
• rg was half a joke since it's Rust's grep. You can just pipe cargo expand [OPTIONS] [ITEM] output to vim '+set ft=rust' - or bat --filename t.rs and search from there.

Examples ARE usage documentation.

What value is this blog supposed to be adding exactly?
The fact that top-level and API descriptive explanations are important?
The fact that some projects don't have complete documentation?
To whom exactly would this be considered new information?

What’s interesting is that this problem is largely solved for C and C++: Linux distributions like Debian

[closes tab]