HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
rust-lang
crater
Rust2018–2026
rust-lang / crater

crater

Run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem!

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
19Distinct people
19Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
777GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem!

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 2:04:58 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year19 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2018-02-19 18:16:42 UTC to 2026-06-21 07:37:32 UTC.

01232018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
nathan_f77·Jun 6, 2020
I agree with this 100%. I recently tried to update an old iOS app written in Swift. I would have to install an older version of Xcode to upgrade Swift from version 2 to 3, and then use the latest Xcode upgrade from 3 to 4. Then I'd have to update every single dependency and figure out any breaking changes. I wanted to see if I could hire someone to help me with this, but they just gave up after looking at it, and recommended rewriting the whole project from scratch. (It's a hobby project so I don't have the budget for a rewrite.) This is generally how dependencies work across all languages and frameworks, and I think the status quo is extremely inefficient. When a library maintainer releases updates with breaking changes, we waste thousands of developer-hours on upgrades and fixing all these changes. I've been thinking about a new kind of
Read the rest
package manager and repository that strictly enforces a certain level of test coverage, and also forces library maintainers to codify the upgrade process. For example, if you decide that you want to rename a `get` method in `v0.1.0` to `fetch` in `v1.0.0`, then your `v1.0.0` release MUST include an automated code-mod script that automatically runs when a developer updates the library version. This wouldn't work so well for dynamically typed languages, but this rename example should work flawlessly in a statically-typed language. The code-mod script should also include lots of test cases, and be tested on lots of other real-world libraries. Similar to how Rust developers detect regressions in the Rust compiler by building a large number of crates. There's probably a lot of reasons why this wouldn't work in the real world, but one can dream! There was a lot of controversies when Elm made this kind of decision about their package ecosystem and removed native modules [2]. Deno is working on a high quality Standard Library [4] with no external dependencies, and where all code is reviewed by the Deno core team (and presumably with a high level of test coverage.) [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/crater [2] https://dev.to/kspeakman/elm-019-broke-us--khn [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17842400 [4] https://deno.land/std
In We’ve built a towering pile of shite

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.