wrangler-legacy

y of 64-bit words, although I can have a value array of 63-bit words. This one bit may seem insignificant, but for certain algorithms it's a big complication. Powers of 2 simplify a lot of algorithms (and are "faster" to be a bit loose with the language). There are other features I'd like, but already this short list makes for a currently-non-existent language. OCaml and Haskell have similar problems to Standard ML. At the same time Rust has great support for arrays, is expression-oriented, has sum types. Value types are the default. It generally ticks a lot of boxes I care about. I can't just go and say "now give me all that but with a GC" and have it appear before me. Also, arenas I use are linked to logical portions of my programs. They are not contrivances that I had to think long and hard about. They don't waste my time really. I've spent 0 time thinking about how they should be organized. Now the part where a GC would be helpful is a bit of a more liberal use of closures, and eliminating code noise coming from lifetime annotations such as "for<'a>". But I can live with the current state of affairs, if I get all the other benefits. > If you're going to do that, would you not be better saving all that time and code bloat (it's code you wrote that doesn't contribute to solving your problem) by just using a garbage collector from the outset? If anything, Rust is an asset for large teams of devs. Even though you may sometimes argue that a handful of C/C++ devs can keep their whole project in their heads and not make mistakes (although I think that's a stretch), the moment you get a large C/C++ team, weird hard-to-debug bugs coming from memory- and thread-safety issues start to creep in. There are other high-level languages, but Rust is the one with a combination of performance competitive with C++ and large ecosystem of libraries you can use. Examples of Rust projects with a large number of contributors facilitated by the language taking the fear of intractable bugs away: - <https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep> - <https://github.com/clap-rs/clap> - <https://github.com/rayon-rs/rayon> - <https://github.com/cloudflare/wrangler> - <https://github.com/sharkdp/fd>

oudflare/wrangler [1] https://miniflare.dev/ [2] https://twitter.com/_mrbbot/status/1441143456106094595

add pages to the mix. Docs should explicitly spell out DNS / routes setup for most common scenarios like: 1) workers-only site (no proxying to any other server) 2) workers in front of a proxied website Workers should be seamlessly integrated with pages i.e. pages should just automatically recognize and use workers-site/ directory on deploy. I don't think setting up pages automatically configures DNS settings for its domain, which it obviously should (might be mis-remembering).

e it'll do what you want - i'm @signalnerve on twitter, DMs are open :) [1] https://github.com/cloudflare/wrangler-action [2] https://github.com/cloudflare/wrangler

has added a package for it to e.g. apt or brew. But given your familiarity w/ NPM - if you are interested in precompiling binaries for each system - you might want to take a look at Cloudflare's wrangler[0], their tooling for interacting with Cloudflare Workers. wrangler is published to both crates.io and NPM (the latter using a script to pull down pre-compiled binaries they host). Edit: Another option, if you want really want to make your project available via a "package manager" that isn't crates.io, would be to release a Docker image. This is an option for CLI tooling - e.g. Hashicorp publishes Packer[1] and Terraform[2] Docker images. That way you don't need to worry about compiling binaries for macOS, linux w/ glibc, linux w/ musl, etc. Just publish a single Docker image, ideally as small as possible. [0] https://github.com/cloudflare/wrangler [1] http://hub.docker.com/r/hashicorp/packer [2] http://hub.docker.com/r/hashicorp/terraform