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

Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)

marc.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 400 posts

Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)

#21

Post by protomyth »

jcranmer wrote: post #8

> I wasn't implying. I was stating a fact. There has been no attempt to move the smallest parts of the ecosystem, to provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. This is in fact incorrect--there is a project aiming to build all of the coreutils in Rust ( https://github.com/uutils/coreutils ). More to the point: while I do concur in the conclusion that Rust shouldn't be a part of the OpenBSD base system, the gatekee…

The post was written in 2017. How far along was the project in 2017.

Also, I am a bit confused about the gatekeeping implied here (it's not a serious language because it's not used to build an operating system) is really toxic.? Which line in the e-mail stated that?

Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)

#22

Post by jcranmer »

zdw wrote: post #14
jcranmer wrote: post #8

> I wasn't implying. I was stating a fact. There has been no attempt to move the smallest parts of the ecosystem, to provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. This is in fact incorrect--there is a project aiming to build all of the coreutils in Rust ( https://github.com/uutils/coreutils ). More to the point: while I do concur in the conclusion that Rust shouldn't be a part of the OpenBSD base system, the gatekee…

Linked mailing list message is from 2017, which is may be after when the linked project was started/viable.

uutils was started in 2013, and was decently complete well before 2017.

Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)

#23

Post by empath75 »

jeffbee wrote: post #16
empath75 wrote: post #5

All the core utils have been ported to rust for the redox project, and there are actually superior alternatives in some cases available like ripgrep.

rg is great but it isn't a drop-in replacement for POSIX grep, which means even if you have rg you still need to ship another grep so all your existing scripts and programs that expect to be able to invoke POSIX grep don't break.

Yeah and there are multiple drop in replacements for grep— he was implying those alternatives didn’t exist because rust wasn’t capable of handling them or people weren’t interesting in writing them, but I think that’s been proven wrong many times over at this point.

https://github.com/redox-os/extrautils/blob/master/src/bin/g...

Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)

#24

Post by dirtydroog »

jcranmer wrote: post #8

> I wasn't implying. I was stating a fact. There has been no attempt to move the smallest parts of the ecosystem, to provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. This is in fact incorrect--there is a project aiming to build all of the coreutils in Rust ( https://github.com/uutils/coreutils ). More to the point: while I do concur in the conclusion that Rust shouldn't be a part of the OpenBSD base system, the gatekee…

Is it 'really toxic', or just uninformed? Note that the email conversation was from a few years ago.

Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)

#25

Post by protomyth »

tpush wrote: post #20
zdw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linked mailing list message is from 2017, which is may be after when the linked project was started/viable.

No need to speculate, if you follow the GitHub link you'll see that the project is older than 2017.

How many utilities were rewritten and shipped at the time of the post?

Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)

#26

Post by m4r35n357 »

simias wrote: post #9
ape4 wrote: post #4

Rust is good at preventing memory leaks. It doesn't matter (as much) for a command line utility that runs for one second then exits. Of course, there are now utilities written in Rust. https://github.com/samuela/rustybox

I think Theo's reply was a bit excessive in some regards but I can also understand him being frustrated when you've been working on a very complex project for decades and somebody comes around and say "uh, why don't you rewrite it in ?". It's seldom a very interesting or constructive discussion. If you think Rust has something to bring to some project then you should at least take the time to write a decent proof of…

I think he was very polite.

Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)

#27

Post by yalogin »

> Rust cannot compile itself.

This seems worth fixing. I think this is his main point.

There is also the bigger question if and why the core utilities should be re-written in Rust. Given that safety is the main value proposition of rust it may be makes sense, but it’s a much bigger discussion.

Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)

#28

Post by dathinab »

jcranmer wrote: post #8

> I wasn't implying. I was stating a fact. There has been no attempt to move the smallest parts of the ecosystem, to provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. This is in fact incorrect--there is a project aiming to build all of the coreutils in Rust ( https://github.com/uutils/coreutils ). More to the point: while I do concur in the conclusion that Rust shouldn't be a part of the OpenBSD base system, the gatekee…

Not only does coreutils exist there is also another think which shouldn't be forgotten.

When you re-write a tool, _why not improve it_? (Especially if the chance that the 100% backwards compatible rewrite will not be accepted anyway).

For a bunch of tools exactly this happens, a new tool which provides the (roughly) functionality but a new (IMHO often better) interface, slightly different options or syntax (for got reasons). Etc.

An example for this is ripgrep (rg), which already became a widely used replacement for grep. It's just not a drop in replacement. (It couldn't do what it does if it would be).

Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)

#30

Post by ryanlol »

So whats the point of rewriting coreutils in rust? If you’re passing attacker controlled inputs into grep you’re probably doing something wrong anyway.

It doesn’t seem like there’s much to be gained here. Network facing software is where the big wins are.

Post reply on HN