Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Gitdot – A better GitHub. Open-source, written in Rust

gitdot.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 322 posts

Re: Show HN: Gitdot – A better GitHub. Open-source, written in Rust

#191

Post by johnisgood »

dijit wrote: post #166
altmanaltman wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the point here. Single binary files are not what makes a programming language good or bad. Its like saying "I want a red car because it goes fast" when people are actually disucssing how the engine works or how easy/difficult is it to drive etc. You cannot base your like/dislike on that single criteria and expect that to actually make sense.

This totally depends. For some people, Linux package management is not solved. Static binaries at least work for deployment. More useful for client software, but you can’t just dismiss someone for having this preference given the poor viability of running arbitrary binaries on Linux due to GNU’s userland style.

No, it does not depend. Your parent is correct with his analogy.

Linux package management is solved, if it depends on something, it depends on the specific Linux distribution, but "Linux" package management is definitely solved.

Re: Show HN: Gitdot – A better GitHub. Open-source, written in Rust

#194

Post by johnisgood »

altmanaltman wrote: post #150
zamalek wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zig and probably Pascal have the same advantage, can't speak for Ada as I've never built it. C and C++? You've got to be joking. If the project provides static binaries, sure, but I don't want to have to worry about finding a necronomicon and summoning the correct kind of imp required to properly use whatever insane build system the project is using.

You are missing the point here. Single binary files are not what makes a programming language good or bad. Its like saying "I want a red car because it goes fast" when people are actually disucssing how the engine works or how easy/difficult is it to drive etc. You cannot base your like/dislike on that single criteria and expect that to actually make sense.

Off: I thought I am becoming dumb, but this really puts me in a new perspective. The odd thing is that even people who work in IT hold similar beliefs. I am not entirely sure what is going on. Favoring a language so blindly seems like a thing, apparently? For example they seem to have convinced themselves that Rust is "safe" if you use it for anything (without implementing the security features) because it is (memory) safe? I did not imagine beginners would make such a mistake either, but alas.

I noticed your comment is getting downvoted. I wish I knew why though. Is it because of your analogy? Is it because they think that somehow "single binary" has anything to do with the programming language? Would like to know. I am not going to assume that it is a confirmation of what I wrote earlier.

Re: Show HN: Gitdot – A better GitHub. Open-source, written in Rust

#195

Post by pastage »

nananana9 wrote: post #181
altmanaltman wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is statically linked binaries an unique advantage of rust or go? you can do the same with C, C++, pascal, ada, zig, and more. Rust even doesnt do the static binary file by default. You might have better devops experience as an end-user of the said software if its statically linked and its a good trend in software sure but it is not unique to go or rust. Admitting you don't know how to code and still trying to arg…

There's a pretty strong culture of "no static linking because I need to replace the .so to preserve my freedom hurr durr" in a lot of Linux spaces, so quite a few of these C/C++ FOSS libraries are a pain in the ass to statically link. Literally last week I was porting something to Linux and had to rewrite the libwayland build scripts because they only expose a shared object. There's also an expectation that you're go…

You are right that there are many of us who prefer the package manager, there are so many reasons why a package manager makes your life wonderful. Debian has always been a proponent of dynamic linking. When you create a Linux distribution that is a big plus.

For me install size matters and statically linked stuff are too big sometimes. Of course a 100MB go statically compiled binary has huge advantages now days.

Re: Show HN: Gitdot – A better GitHub. Open-source, written in Rust

#196

Post by IshKebab »

epolanski wrote: post #190
thayne wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the fact that Github and Gitlab use ruby backends is a significant (although by no means the only) factor in the slowness of Github and Gitlab. So yes, being written in a language that is better suited for high performance at scale is, potentially, an advantage. Although if it is vibe coded, there's a decent chance there are architectural problems that offset the advantage gained from the choice in language…

GitHub used to be great when the frontend too was in ruby, the react rework might've got somebody promoted but performance was never the same. GitHub is so data heavy and there's so little reactivity that it should really be server side rendered.

The frontend was Ruby?? Are you sure?

Re: Show HN: Gitdot – A better GitHub. Open-source, written in Rust

#199

Post by pdpi »

IshKebab wrote: post #196
epolanski wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub used to be great when the frontend too was in ruby, the react rework might've got somebody promoted but performance was never the same. GitHub is so data heavy and there's so little reactivity that it should really be server side rendered.

The frontend was Ruby?? Are you sure?

As in rendered server-side.

Re: Show HN: Gitdot – A better GitHub. Open-source, written in Rust

#200

Post by badsectoracula »

altmanaltman wrote: post #143
analog_daddy wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is an advantage. I am not a rust evangelist, I am not a rust programmer or programmer at all; however while evaluating tools to use, anything written in Rust and Go at-least gets me to look at the project in more detail, since they most likely are able to ship statically linked binaries, which has been one of the key criteria for my personal evaluation of tools to select and use. So, you might not consider it…

How is statically linked binaries an unique advantage of rust or go? you can do the same with C, C++, pascal, ada, zig, and more. Rust even doesnt do the static binary file by default. You might have better devops experience as an end-user of the said software if its statically linked and its a good trend in software sure but it is not unique to go or rust. Admitting you don't know how to code and still trying to arg…

It is not about being able to make static binaries or really anything that has to do with anything technical. It is more of a cultural thing - the culture in some languages is to link dependencies dynamically (C/C++) whereas the culture in others is to link dependencies statically (Go, not sure about Rust).

Personally i do not even write Go myself yet when i see some webapp made in Go i'm pretty much always sure that it'll be a self-contained static binary. Yes, there are probably exceptions (and i haven't surveyed all webapps made with Go) but it has been common enough to feel as the standard approach to me - and if i ever decide to make a binary webapp, i'll probably reach for Go to do it.

Post reply on HN