Announcing Rust 1.96

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/05/28/Rust-1.96.0/

by adamch • 2 months ago

143 38 2 months ago

blog.rust-lang.org

Tuna-Fish2• 2 months ago

I honestly didn't expect the ranges to be ever fixed, I just expected they would remain as an eternal wart.

I wonder how painless the transition will be.

estebank2• 2 months ago

The full transition won't be completed until 2027 edition, when the meaning of the `..` operator is expected to swap to the new type.

whereistejas• 2 months ago

i came here to comment the same! could not be happier!

ameliaquining3• 2 months ago

It came pretty close to happening in Rust 2024, but it was determined that there just wasn't enough time left before the end-of-year deadline to roll out such a big change.

TazeTSchnitzel• 2 months ago

When the new edition rolls around that swaps to the new type, I expect a bunch of libraries are going to get really annoying to use. And vice-versa for new libraries with the old editions.

yuriks• 2 months ago

Both types have the `From` conversion traits implemented between each other, so in most cases interoperating with APIs using the old type should be as simple as doing `(1...4).into()`. And, probably because of the warts of the old types, I haven't seen them used much in APIs, so even that I don't think will happen very often.

pornel• 2 months ago

Unlikely, since library interfaces need to use a trait to accept all of the open/closed inclusive/exclusive syntax variations. If the only accept one specific named range type, they're clunky already.

pjmlp7• 2 months ago

I will watch it quite interested, as it tends to be an example I give where editions don't really work as people expect.

mountainriver• 2 months ago

With AI assisted coding I imagine no one will notice

It’s a new world for breaking things

PoignardAzur• 2 months ago

Woohoo, assert_matches! After all these years!

j1elo2• 2 months ago

Why replace the already existing std::range in-place with the new version, and move the old one to std::range::legacy?

That's confusing and not forward thinking, what if a design improvement is found in some years and a new iteration is wanted? Will it end up as a std::range::legacy::legacier?

The other day there was some talking about Go's stdlib around here, and I truly believe they got it much better thought out. std::range should stay where it is, and the new one be introduced as std::range/v2 or std::range::v2 or whatever syntax was deemed adequate.

Solving the problem of how to iterate the stdlib in a maintainable and consistent way would also help to take away the reservations against adding actual batteries to the stdlib. The old adage against adding APIs because "once a new API enters the stdlib, it has to stay like that forever" has meant that Rust never takes a stance to pick a set of opinionated choices for the majority of the community who just want an "official" language-vetted way to get stuff done.

metaltyphoon2• 2 months ago

std::range should stay where it is, and the new one be introduced as std::range/v2

Isn’t this what editions are for?

estebank2• 2 months ago

Yes, but no, but also yes.

Editions are for language evolution. Evolving the std does fit the bill. Edition aware path resolution isn't a thing. It will likely be a thing starting with Edition 2027. Range is likely to be the first type to use this feature upcoming.

burntsushi• 2 months ago

(I am on the Rust libs-api team. I say "we" below, but I didn't do any of the amazing new range type work.)

Why replace the already existing std::range in-place with the new version

We didn't. `std::range` is new. The existing range types have always been in `std::ops`. They have to stay there because we don't have a way of resolving paths in an edition dependent way.

See: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3550-new-range.html#new-pat...

The other day there was some talking about Go's stdlib around here, and I truly believe they got it much better thought out.

I used Go for over a decade and loved every minute of it.

As someone with significant API design experience in both Go and Rust, Go has it way easier. I don't want to go into a big long diatribe about it, but the space in which Rust operates means that getting APIs correct in a way that lasts forever is harder. To a first approximation, this is a result of project goals (hand wavy: being able to write code while thinking about "what I want the CPU to do") and expressive power provided by the language.

Go added generics after I mostly stopped using it, but even with that, there are considerable differences in expressive power that translate directly into more complex APIs.

Plus, Rust started with Cargo. Go didn't get "proper" package management until much later. The promise (and one that it has fulfilled ten-fold) was precisely that Rust's standard library could be "small" and gaps could be filled by ecosystem crates that can use semver incompatible changes to evolve when necessary.

(My intent is for the above to be mostly descriptive. I'm not trying to cast shade on Go here. The Rust and Go projects have different goals that they optimize for. To be prescriptive: Go does an excellent job of optimizing for their goals IMO. And also, IMO, to be frank, I would consider this a feature of Go that it has over Rust. Having batteries in std is great. I'd love to have more. It's just fucking hard in the Rust world. That's not to minimize and say Go has it easy... But, well, okay. I'll stop hedging here. Lol.)

honr4• 2 months ago

I believe by a wide margin the most significant long term problem with rust is lack of a good and comprehensive standard library, or a FEW set of crates that provides a really good set. We are in the age of supply chain risks and I personally know many great engineers who shun languages whose community / library providers don't take this problem with utmost care. At this point in time, rust is being treated like nodejs. That is not fair to rust, but that is the reality of the current situation.

Go, on the other hand took simplicity as a major goal, and while not the most efficient or expressive language out there, that single goal is paying massive dividents.

The good news is, all this means, is that rust can / will be a lot more serious when someone, possibly a big corporation with deep pockets to maintain this until a critical mass has formed, develops and maintains a golang-style standard library. It can be like C++'s in which the initial std lib was crap compared to what it is now. But people ended up using and eventually evolving the language and the std lib together. We are missing that kind of library at the moment.

steveklabnik4• 2 months ago

That would be a reasonable worry, except that this specific issue has been discussed for like, a decade. It’s the only beef people have. It’s unlikely that they’ll find something else any time soon.

j1elo2• 2 months ago

Talking about this specifically, yes it's difficult to think of a reason to change ranges in the future.

But bringing my post to a more general stance, I'm of the opinion that Rust is fixated a bit too much on the goal of having a minimal core and leaving the ecosystem to find its own ways forward. Maybe it wouldn't hurt that much if the language, with its current age, started opening up to providing more of the stuff that's currently deemed "inappropriate" for the stdlib. Didn't we have enough time to let the bazaar do its thing and come up with some locally optimal API designs yet? While having a consistent way to version APIs (such as the mentioned Go's /v2) solves the issue of "being stuck forever".

I guess all this to say that extremes are never healthy. The Rust Way is a good one for letting the community discover and experiment, but not even compromising on an async engine is (as always, IMHO) taking it a bit too far.

bulbar• 2 months ago

I don't follow Rust closely, but I somehow love that they just did it. I like C++, but it would be much less confusing if the committee dared to change the language or std from time to time. Instead, they only ever extend (with super rare outliers).

pjmlp7• 2 months ago

For better or worse, that is one reason why many of us still reach out to C++.

Especially because ISO languages always have to care about multiple implementations, C++ isn't alone in this.

pjmlp7• 2 months ago

Agree, not only Go, this would have been the approach in Java, C#, and C++, with newer namespace, or new data type.

7e• 2 months ago

Where is the fork of Rust that accepts AI contributions? We need that desperately.

steveklabnik4• 2 months ago

The Rust language does not currently have an LLM policy, but the one under discussion is not a total ban.

Announcing Rust 1.96

Related Stories