Stream: ctcft

Topic: 2022-01-17


view this post on Zulip Forest Anderson [he/him] (Nov 25 2021 at 14:56):

Going to start the planning for January! We're going to skip December, since we're predicting that it would be a low turnout so close to the holidays. A few topics that have yet to be done:

Any other topics on people's minds?

view this post on Zulip Doc Jones (Nov 25 2021 at 16:48):

I think Jan would be a good time to share the findings that we have from the RRC. We will have completed a few sessions by then and sharing an update makes sense.

view this post on Zulip Mara (Dec 13 2021 at 14:47):

Maybe we can invite some Zig people to talk about the amazing things they do, and how Rust can also benefit from that: https://twitter.com/andy_kelley/status/1470338795266457600

I'm curious if any Rust folks are interested in this - this work is extremely reusable and it's really not that much code to add to the compiler to parse this 165 KB file and then be able to cross compile for any glibc version on any CPU architecture. https://twitter.com/andy_kelley/status/1470332120665001990

- Andrew Kelley (@andy_kelley)

view this post on Zulip Daniel Silverstone (Dec 13 2021 at 14:54):

That sounds really interesting.

view this post on Zulip Josh Triplett (Dec 13 2021 at 18:59):

I'd also love to have a conversation about the benefits of having a rustc equivalent of zig cc.

view this post on Zulip Forest Anderson [he/him] (Dec 14 2021 at 04:44):

I do really like this idea, I'll work on reaching out to Andrew. It might be a February talk though, since it would be nice to split up the external talks instead of having them one after another.

view this post on Zulip Nick Gerace (Dec 31 2021 at 23:46):

Mara said:

Maybe we can invite some Zig people to talk about the amazing things they do, and how Rust can also benefit from that: https://twitter.com/andy_kelley/status/1470338795266457600

I would be a fan of this as well!

view this post on Zulip Nick Gerace (Jan 05 2022 at 00:38):

I could be wrong, but I think the Google Calendar for CTCFT does not have the 2022-01-17 date yet. Is this an error?

view this post on Zulip Forest Anderson [he/him] (Jan 05 2022 at 15:32):

No, you're right, I'll try to get that set up today :)

view this post on Zulip Nick Gerace (Jan 05 2022 at 17:12):

Thank you :) @Forest Anderson [he/him]

view this post on Zulip nikomatsakis (Jan 05 2022 at 19:51):

@Nick Cameron or @rylev I'm curious if there are any results from the Rust survey available yet, that could be a really interesting thing to talk about, maybe not this month but next month

view this post on Zulip nikomatsakis (Jan 05 2022 at 19:52):

@Jack Wrenn and myself have also been having various conversations about what people need from Rust; I think that'd be interesting to discuss, but maybe not just yet.

view this post on Zulip nikomatsakis (Jan 05 2022 at 19:53):

Similarly, I wonder @tmandry if we would want to talk about async working group update

view this post on Zulip nikomatsakis (Jan 05 2022 at 19:54):

Oh, and @Manish Goregaokar or @Pascal, I'd be kind of interested to just have a talk about how the dev-tools teams work, is that something you two might consider giving? It's I thnk the only "umbrella team"

view this post on Zulip Manish Goregaokar (Jan 05 2022 at 19:55):

Maybe tend to not have time at the regularly scheduled ctcfts

view this post on Zulip Doc Jones (Jan 05 2022 at 20:08):

nikomatsakis said:

Oh, and Manish Goregaokar or Pascal, I'd be kind of interested to just have a talk about how the dev-tools teams work, is that something you two might consider giving? It's I thnk the only "umbrella team"

I would love to hear this. Would a recorded presentation be possible? @Manish Goregaokar

view this post on Zulip technetos (Jan 05 2022 at 20:29):

For the most part ctcft talks are a bit more interactive than a prerecorded talk, q&a and such

view this post on Zulip Doc Jones (Jan 05 2022 at 20:32):

technetos said:

For the most part ctcft talks are a bit more interactive than a prerecorded talk, q&a and such

Absolutely agree. A live talk would be the preferred way, but if the option is not learning about the dev-tools team and doing a recorded call, I would like to see the recorded call and follow up discussion in zulip.

view this post on Zulip lqd (Jan 05 2022 at 20:34):

CTCFTs usually are recorded, and posted to the youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL85XCvVPmGQifcJ00liouxTNvSdM1vHjA

view this post on Zulip Nick Cameron (Jan 06 2022 at 09:49):

We don't have survey data to share yet, we're just about to get started with translating answers and data processing. We might have something to share by the 17th, but I reckon February would be a safer bet

view this post on Zulip Doc Jones (Jan 06 2022 at 11:19):

lqd said:

CTCFTs usually are recorded, and posted to the youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL85XCvVPmGQifcJ00liouxTNvSdM1vHjA ah you probably meant that Manish would record the presentation and it'd be streamed at the regular time :sweat_smile: ignore me

It wasn't clear the way I wrote it. I've edited to hopefully avoid confusing other people who read my post. :)

view this post on Zulip Forest Anderson [he/him] (Jan 07 2022 at 01:44):

I think the January CTCFT is slated for the 02:00 GMT/UTC timeslot (https://everytimezone.com/s/590c1b5f)

view this post on Zulip Forest Anderson [he/him] (Jan 12 2022 at 00:30):

Just a heads up, we'll be holding off on the January CTCFT. Several potential speakers have content that will be ready in February, but wouldn't have worked for this month.

However, I have prepared a hackmd doc with the list of CTCFT ideas. If you have any other ideas of topics, feel free to add them or leave a comment!
https://hackmd.io/@rust-ctcft/S11-jXcnY

view this post on Zulip Doc Jones (Jan 12 2022 at 01:10):

So it's Social Hour only?

view this post on Zulip Forest Anderson [he/him] (Jan 12 2022 at 02:58):

Doc Jones said:

So it's Social Hour only?

I'm not sure how beneficial it would be to run the social, since the goal of it is to discuss items from the presentations. However, it can also be a fun opportunity to chat with others each month. @Jane Lusby [she/her] what are your thoughts?

view this post on Zulip Noah Lev (Jan 12 2022 at 03:00):

since the goal of it is to discuss items from the presentations

Hmm, I didn't realize that. I thought it was looser: just to meet other contributors and community members "face to face" and talk about anything Rust-related.

view this post on Zulip Jane Lusby [she/her] (Jan 12 2022 at 04:33):

I'm down to hang out for the social hour! 1 hour after the everytimezone link @Forest Anderson [he/him] posted?

view this post on Zulip Jane Lusby [she/her] (Jan 12 2022 at 04:33):

So 7 pm PST next Monday

view this post on Zulip Doc Jones (Jan 12 2022 at 06:40):

Forest Anderson [he/him] said:

Doc Jones said:

So it's Social Hour only?

I'm not sure how beneficial it would be to run the social, since the goal of it is to discuss items from the presentations. However, it can also be a fun opportunity to chat with others each month. Jane Lusby [she/her] what are your thoughts?

I'm not sure you were attending ctcft at the very beginning when @Jane Lusby [she/her] started the Social Hour with the goal of a social gathering that could include breakout rooms for topical discussions or rooms for open ended chat. We do often create rooms based on the topics from the meeting, but that wasn't "the goal" per se.

Anyone who attends might easily get the impression that it's an extension of ctcft, but it's more like a chance to socialize that is loosely coupled with ctcft. :)

view this post on Zulip Forest Anderson [he/him] (Jan 12 2022 at 13:43):

Awesome to hear the feedback; I came into the CTCFT at least a few months after it started, so it makes sense that I don't have all the context on it :smile: that being said, I do like this premise of it being primarily an opportunity to socialize. Excited for it!

view this post on Zulip nikomatsakis (Jan 12 2022 at 19:59):

we should post some sort of announcement that it will be social hour only

view this post on Zulip nikomatsakis (Jan 12 2022 at 19:59):

this is maybe a good chance to debut the intorust blog and the new team?

view this post on Zulip Doc Jones (Jan 13 2022 at 14:00):

nikomatsakis said:

this is maybe a good chance to debut the intorust blog and the new team?

Yes. I would like to hear this. Sounds interesting.

view this post on Zulip Forest Anderson [he/him] (Jan 17 2022 at 21:53):

Pretty late, but I just sent out a calendar invite + added to the CTCFT page:
https://rust-lang.github.io/ctcft/meetings/2022-01-17.html

view this post on Zulip Forest Anderson [he/him] (Jan 18 2022 at 02:53):

Because of difficulties in the Zoom setup, here is a more accessible link to the call for the Social Hour:

https://us04web.zoom.us/j/8768468802?pwd=Q1NzNFBleTFWeUlzTHRweUhvdDB1dz09

Meeting ID: 876 846 8802
Passcode: L3cRPB

view this post on Zulip Jane Lusby [she/her] (Jan 18 2022 at 03:40):

extended cut!: https://us05web.zoom.us/j/81940121134?pwd=UzlEVFNVMVNGb1J3U0Q5VHZNMTQ2UT09

view this post on Zulip Jane Lusby [she/her] (Jan 18 2022 at 03:56):

66560872-2f28-40a4-bbea-f83929cfacc4.jpg

view this post on Zulip Josh Triplett (Jan 18 2022 at 04:08):

Noting for posterity: discussions during the social hour produced the idea, for postfix macros, that the "self" argument could stringify! to the full receiver expression, even though it actually acts like a pre-evaluated variable. And that would make complex.expr().dbg!() Just Work.

view this post on Zulip Josh Triplett (Jan 18 2022 at 04:08):

I love when great ideas come out of random discussions.

view this post on Zulip Josh Triplett (Jan 18 2022 at 04:08):

cc @nikomatsakis

view this post on Zulip nikomatsakis (Jan 18 2022 at 17:08):

@Josh Triplett I don't understand the "stringify" -- oh, maybe I do?

view this post on Zulip nikomatsakis (Jan 18 2022 at 17:08):

but I like foo.dbg!() just working!

view this post on Zulip Josh Triplett (Jan 18 2022 at 17:11):

nikomatsakis said:

Josh Triplett I don't understand the "stringify" -- oh, maybe I do?

The RFC as I previously wrote it said that stringify! would return $self. I think it'd be trivial to have stringify! return the entire receiver, even though it's still pre-evaluated.

view this post on Zulip Josh Triplett (Jan 18 2022 at 17:11):

So if you did complex.expr().dbg!(), when dbg! called stringify! on its receiver, it would get complex.expr().


Last updated: Jan 26 2022 at 09:02 UTC