rustbook: libraries ~ dependencies

[ActualizeInMaterial]

We call libraries your code needs ‘dependencies’ since your code depends on them.
src: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/book/getting-started.html

[steveklabnik]

Sorry, can you clarify what this issue is about? I'm not understanding.

[ActualizeInMaterial]

the sentence doesn't make grammatical sense? sorry, I thought it was obvious
I mean, see that sentence (search for it) in that doc(link).

[Thiez]

I'm sure steve can read, and can understand that the line you quoted is somewhere on that page. That part is obvious. What is not obvious is what you think is wrong with it. It looks like you've just grabbed a random sentence from the rust-book, and it is entirely unclear what this issue is about, except that it is probably in some way related to the sentence you quoted.

[ActualizeInMaterial]

Here it is in context:

Cargo is Rust’s build system and package manager, and Rustaceans use Cargo to manage their Rust projects. Cargo manages three things: building your code, downloading the libraries your code depends on, and building those libraries. We call libraries your code needs ‘dependencies’ since your code depends on them.

The simplest Rust programs don’t have any dependencies, so right now, you'd only use the first part of its functionality. As you write more complex Rust programs, you’ll want to add dependencies, and if you start off using Cargo, that will be a lot easier to do.

Does that make sense to anyone?

[ActualizeInMaterial]

maybe your code needs is extraneous? or something else was meant there

[ActualizeInMaterial]

Oh wait, I get it:
libraries your code needs is taken as a whole(substantive?Edit: noun, I meant)
my bad then, I literally could not see this until now, thanks @Thiez

EDIT2: Soooo, I've been thinking... if I generalize what just happened here I could get something like this:

• superficially examining a situation and deriving a belief about it based on a superficial examination(eg. hey I can't see how that sentence makes sense) and accepting it as truth(=that sentence is definitely grammatically incorrect). This is like setting a variable in the computer A=2 and saying well A is clearly 2 because B=1 and C=1 and A is definitely B+C. But then a deeper inspection uncovers how the things really are, thus realizing that in fact A should be =10 because we're talking binary representation here, not base 3+. (maybe this is a bad analogy because we're only changing the view of how we look at A and not the value of A aka the truth; but if you use vars like this, you get the idea of what happens in the unconscious(the computer))
  Ok so, in a way you could say: the deeper you explore the tree of what you think you know, the more likely you are to uncover the truth and is likely different than what you think the truth was thus far, truth that you based on less-deeply exploring of tree(aka superficially exploring it).
  So I'm sure this ^ is something everyone here already knows because it's so natural to realize and seems fundamental, and I keep re-realizing this whenever I find myself superficially treating(looking at) stuff and then realize how wrong I was in my beliefs about it BECAUSE I was looking at it so superficially instead of deeper.
  So it seems to important to avoid implicits and make them explicit instead, not only because doing so makes the owner realize new things about that subject, but it also helps others understand that subject since it's likely now more self-sufficient than before.(eg. don't have to google to form a background to understand it)
  So what I should've said is: hey this sentence seems wrong: We call libraries your code needs ‘dependencies’ since your code depends on them. Like, it looks like it should be: We call libraries ‘dependencies’ since your code depends on them. and/or Libraries are called ‘dependencies’ since your code depends on them. and then you would've realized how wrong I am in my "seeing" that sentence. But nooo, I had to imply HOW it's wrong because it was OBVIOUSLY wrong (to me) so there's no way others wouldn't see HOW it's wrong, so no point in wasting their time and saying how it's wrong and make them feel patronized - or wtw is the internal rationalization for just not going deeper and bring the reasoning to the surface by stating it in text form.
  Now you see, I usually tend to be verbose (too verbose sometimes) but I realize that I unintentionally(subconsciously) do keep things on the implicit level which is bad because I'm expecting others to reach the same implicit realizations that I have when I wrote that(which usually depends on their background(knowledge-wise) and unless we're sharing the same(well similar enough) one(for simple things like language it might be so) they are not going to think similar like how I was expecting). So it's way better if I were to just (ideally) dump them in the tree of knowledge where they can explore and see on what dependencies my realization(s) of (my) truth(eg. that sentence being grammatically incoherent) and point out the flaws that way. Ok, i kinda lost my train of thought of what I wanted to say more, but the point is, we need a system, probably based on graphs(nodes&edges) which would represent systems(even the rust lang itself, and the OS too lol) and then if you want to explore it you can, without external information like googling; it would be self-sufficient; and the knowledge of the people trying to use it will increase because they have immediate(supposedly) accessibility to what they want to know - they just start somewhere (in the system) and can explore the whole system, at less cost than googling(externally)for solutions...
  Anyway /rant :D

EDIT3: So, if you want to improve on this btw, you could add the and that, ie.:
We call libraries your code needs ‘dependencies’ since your code depends on them.
becomes
We call the libraries that your code needs ‘dependencies’ since your code depends on them.
or maybe
We call 'libraries your code needs' ‘dependencies’ since your code depends on them.
or not, whatever:)