Why are people using rust to build web apps
Why wouldn't we? It's a fantastic language with great tooling, top tier performance and minimal footprint
[flagged]
Show HN: Apate API mocking/prototyping server and Rust unit test library
11–20 of 22 posts
Re: Show HN: Apate API mocking/prototyping server and Rust unit test library
#12This English as second language README being not written by LLM -- despite the emojis which the LLMs had to learn from somewhere -- is refreshing.
Re: Show HN: Apate API mocking/prototyping server and Rust unit test library
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't we? It's a fantastic language with great tooling, top tier performance and minimal footprint
[flagged]
Some Rust proponents, but certainly it's obvious not all of them, or not even a meaningful majority.
Which is to say this despicable act has absolutely no bearing on the language and its ecosystem, so bringing it up is irrelevant, and therefore those downplaying it are not necessarily in favor of the act.
I hope that logic is self-evident.
Re: Show HN: Apate API mocking/prototyping server and Rust unit test library
#14The licence terms / variation on MIT is interesting - unless this file is part of some standard I'm unaware of I'd expect it still shows as plain MIT for most automated SBOM collection/licence checks which feels problematic. ( https://github.com/rustrum/apate/blob/main/LICENSE-TERMS )
Well the point here is that if I created it by myself I can make whatever license I want. But I do not want to write my own license. AFAIK even if you grant something for subset of users for "free" you have to define legally terms of this "free" usage.
Re: Show HN: Apate API mocking/prototyping server and Rust unit test library
#15The licence terms / variation on MIT is interesting - unless this file is part of some standard I'm unaware of I'd expect it still shows as plain MIT for most automated SBOM collection/licence checks which feels problematic. ( https://github.com/rustrum/apate/blob/main/LICENSE-TERMS )
Yeah, that kills adoption by most people I'd imagine. Non-standard license terms are always a huge red flag IMO, regardless of actual license terms.
It is simple. If you do not like it - do not use it. I do not care. Have no plans to conquer the world with this project :)
Re: Show HN: Apate API mocking/prototyping server and Rust unit test library
#16Why are people using rust to build web apps
First of all, this is not a web app.
Second, what should I use if I want a small binary with no dependencies and low CPU/RAM usage?
I could’ve used Go, but once you know Rust Go’s existence almost stops making sense :)
Re: Show HN: Apate API mocking/prototyping server and Rust unit test library
#17This English as second language README being not written by LLM -- despite the emojis which the LLMs had to learn from somewhere -- is refreshing.
Well plain text README is booooooring. And I just realized that adding emoji could help to make it more fun and emphasize some context.
Re: Show HN: Apate API mocking/prototyping server and Rust unit test library
#18The licence terms / variation on MIT is interesting - unless this file is part of some standard I'm unaware of I'd expect it still shows as plain MIT for most automated SBOM collection/licence checks which feels problematic. ( https://github.com/rustrum/apate/blob/main/LICENSE-TERMS )
Ouch, why even involve the MIT license if you're gonna do custom terms anyways? Just put "Copyright me" and be done with it instead of ending up with some weird half and half solution. Net effect ends up the same anyways.
I just thought that MIT for subset of users is better than "My Own License"
Re: Show HN: Apate API mocking/prototyping server and Rust unit test library
#19Feels like a Wiremock for Rust.
Maybe, but it is much simpler, probably faster, starts instantly and do not eats tons of RAM.
Re: Show HN: Apate API mocking/prototyping server and Rust unit test library
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that kills adoption by most people I'd imagine. Non-standard license terms are always a huge red flag IMO, regardless of actual license terms.
It is simple. If you do not like it - do not use it. I do not care. Have no plans to conquer the world with this project :)
I mean you must care a little bit right? Why publish it and share it here otherwise? :) Maybe you're looking for people to just review and learn from the code, rather than use it in their projects?