Lib.rs has previously been editorializing the crates within the search algorithm on their site based on their own personal preference. However, they recently have taken it a step too far in labeling the bitcoin repo as unmaintained despite active development taking place for the past several years. Several others have also taken similar actions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] manpacket@lemmyrs.org 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

While I share the sentiments about cryptocurrency being a solution that is in search for a problem - libs should not editorialize the contents while still claiming to be "more complete and accurate crate information than crates.io"

Today the came for cryptocurrency, if we don't speak up - tomorrow they will come for monads and other category theory goodies.

[–] kornel@lemmyrs.org 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://crates.io/search?q=git (finds dead placeholder, no git2 in sight) vs https://lib.rs/search?q=git (finds git2 first)
https://crates.io/search?q=option (dead placeholder again, and every crate that contains "at your option" in license) vs https://lib.rs/search?q=option (finds Option helpers and cli parsers)
https://crates.io/search?q=database vs https://lib.rs/search?q=database
https://crates.io/search?q=error (7-year-old crate, podcast-api!?) vs https://lib.rs/search?q=error (anyhow + thiserror first)
https://crates.io/search?q=sedre (typo) vs https://lib.rs/search?q=sedre (did you mean serde?)

crates.io is fine when you know the name of the crate you want (navigation searches), but is full of noise for broader queries. It doesn't eliminate namesquatted garbage nor obsolete crates. It searches all text including tangential boilerplate. It shows fewer results per page. OTOH lib.rs filters out the noise. It also understands words with multiple meanings and ensures all meanings are included (e.g. search for "http" knows to include "http client" and "http server" and asks you to clarify which meaning you wanted).

load more comments (2 replies)