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

Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 200 posts

Re: Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

#101

Post by steveklabnik »

hibbelig wrote: post #91
dragonsh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You start building something with Rust and you should be operational quite quickly Rust is anything but easy and simple like Go language. Please try building something like Kubernetes in Rust instead of Go and you will realize “Rust” is a a complicated language (worse than complex). Rust has a steep learning curve and the standard library is quite limited. So you will need to search and choose from different crates…

OT: "Steep learning curve". Can someone give me an intuition that explains the meaning? My understanding is that it means "requires a lot of effort to learn to some degree", but when I see the words "learning curve", I imagine a graph with time on the x-axis and knowlege on the y-axis, and when that curve is steep, that means you acquire a lot of knowledge in a short time. Which is kind of the opposite... Can someone…

The intuition is supposed to be that knowledge is on top of something like a mountain. It is easier to climb up a small hill than it is to climb up Mt. Everest. This is because (in the analogy, obviously in real life it's more than just this) Mt. Everest is steeper than the hill your house is on top of.

In other words, the issue with your intuition is that the speed at which you go up the curve is constant, but in the saying, you go up the steeper curve much more slowly than you do the slight curve.

Does that help?

Re: Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

#102

Post by dragonsh »

jevgeni wrote: post #82
dragonsh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust market itself as replacement for C/C++ and proclaims as if all code written in C/C++ is garbage and only Rust can solve it, when majority of it's own useful crates heavily rely on unsafe "C/C++" code. So "Pure Rust" is also marketing when you look at the crates used by this software are not Pure Rust, but rely on unsafe code of C underneath. Python, PHP do not claim as C/C++ replacement, indeed Python is synonym…

C/C++ market itself as replacement for assembly languages and proclaim as if all code written in assembly languages is garbage and only C/C++ can solve it, when majority of it's own useful libraries heavily rely on unsafe assembly code. So "Pure C/C++" is also marketing when you look at the libraries used by this software are not Pure C/C++, but rely on unsafe assembly code underneath. Python, PHP do not claim as ass…

> C/C++ market itself as replacement for assembly languages and proclaim as if all code written in assembly languages is garbage and only C/C++ can solve it

Your assertion is not true in C/C++ community, but “Rust is good and C or any other systems programming language is bad” is common assertion in Rust community. Most C/C++ programmers will not mind writing handcrafted assembly. Seen plenty of such examples in game and embedded systems development. C/C++ contrary to your arguments make it very easy to incorporate handcrafted assembly along with C/C++ code, haven’t seen handcrafted assembly code in Rust so can’t say if it’s as easy as C.

Re: Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

#103

Post by anwkdjqd »

hmartins wrote: post #64
phoe-krk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Do you have any arguments why it isn't broken and go against the arguments linked in the related HN discussion? Is CPython in some way immune to overflows, use-after-free, double freeing, and so on? How much of CPython is actually implemented in C, and how much in itself and/or in Python?

Why should we care about arguments in a random HN discussion? We should care about arguments from people who have done substantial work. Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): python: 578880 (54.33%) ansic: 475310 (44.61%) sh: 4073 (0.38%) cpp: 3847 (0.36%) asm: 1486 (0.14%) objc: 761 (0.07%) lisp: 502 (0.05%) pascal: 353 (0.03%) xml: 308 (0.03%) csh: 21 (0.00%) Most of pure Python is in the stdlib.

Since the chief rust town crier arrived, even this comment is downvoted. No other language has such toxic people who don't do much actual work.

Rust survives by cancel culture.

Re: Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

#104

Post by nindalf »

Kinrany wrote: post #96
abdusco wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a Rust version of Atwood's Law? --- FTI [0]: > In 2007, Jeff Atwood made the quote that was popularly referred to as Atwood’s Law:[5] >> “Any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript.” [0]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Jeff_Atwood

Atwood's Law 2.0 should probably be about WASM

And there is a language that's pretty good at compiling to wasm.

Re: Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

#105

Post by steveklabnik »

dragonsh wrote: post #102
jevgeni wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C/C++ market itself as replacement for assembly languages and proclaim as if all code written in assembly languages is garbage and only C/C++ can solve it, when majority of it's own useful libraries heavily rely on unsafe assembly code. So "Pure C/C++" is also marketing when you look at the libraries used by this software are not Pure C/C++, but rely on unsafe assembly code underneath. Python, PHP do not claim as ass…

> C/C++ market itself as replacement for assembly languages and proclaim as if all code written in assembly languages is garbage and only C/C++ can solve it Your assertion is not true in C/C++ community, but “Rust is good and C or any other systems programming language is bad” is common assertion in Rust community. Most C/C++ programmers will not mind writing handcrafted assembly. Seen plenty of such examples in game…

Rust's inline assembly used to be the exact same as clang's. We recently merged a slightly different version, in the hopes of stabilizing that feature. It ends up pretty similar. (I've been writing a bunch of inline assembly lately, and in fact, ported some C inline asm to Rust. It's not exactly identical, and I did in fact introduce a small bug when doing so...)

Re: Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

#106

Post by the_gipsy »

dragonsh wrote: post #98
oblio wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go has much bigger backing that Rust. And most of that server software comes directly from Google or their ecosystem: Kubernetes, Kubernetes appendages, "Cloud Native" stuff. And Swift is only relevant because it's the only modern, officially sanctioned, systems software programming language on 2 platforms: Mac OS and iOS (especially iOS). I know of 0 people who use or have a desire to use it outside of MacOS or iOS.…

> Time will tell Agree time will tell at present Rust is like other niche systems programming language competing with others like Nim and Zig bit more popular due to Firefox being popular. Nowhere close to Go or Swift, may be in 5 years might have something substantial by Amazon and Microsoft available in open source. > Go has much bigger backing Go is popular because it’s easy, simple, performant with opinionated de…

Careful, if you only measure by popularity, you'll get to Java and Javascript as best choice. I'll make a guess and say that these two are not what you want :)

Re: Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

#107

Post by ginsider_oaks »

phoe-krk wrote: post #57
namKS wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so CPython is broken by default and by design. Yes Sir, understood sir, no exceptions, sir!

Sure. Do you have any arguments why it isn't broken and go against the arguments linked in the related HN discussion? Is CPython in some way immune to overflows, use-after-free, double freeing, and so on? How much of CPython is actually implemented in C, and how much in itself and/or in Python?

is any rust code some way immune to unsafe blocks?

Re: Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

#108

Post by oblio »

the_gipsy wrote: post #106
dragonsh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Time will tell Agree time will tell at present Rust is like other niche systems programming language competing with others like Nim and Zig bit more popular due to Firefox being popular. Nowhere close to Go or Swift, may be in 5 years might have something substantial by Amazon and Microsoft available in open source. > Go has much bigger backing Go is popular because it’s easy, simple, performant with opinionated de…

Careful, if you only measure by popularity, you'll get to Java and Javascript as best choice. I'll make a guess and say that these two are not what you want :)

Well, popularity (quantity) does have a quality all its own.

Rust will never be extremely popular, just because it is more low level. I'd say that for each low level concept you add (pointers/references being on of the big ones), your "market reach" for a programming language goes down by an order of magnitude :-)

Re: Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

#109

Post by avasthe »

phoe-krk wrote: post #4
linkdd wrote: post #2

Why do people feel the need to reimplement everything in Rust ? If it's not broken, don't fix it...

From the security perspective, if it is written in C, then it is broken by default and by design - no exceptions. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24133128 for a recent, very relevant discussion on that topic with multiple examples and a good rationale.

Yea no exceptions in C

Re: Gitoxide: Pure Rust Implementation of Git

#110

Post by avasthe »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #37

How much use of unsafe is there? 'Pure Rust' counts for little if the code overuses Rust's unsafe features. edit This was a sincere question. I'm glad the answer turned out to be that there's very little of it.

Why is it even downvoted?

Such a downvote heavy community. Plaudits to all involved.

Post reply on HN