Don't take me wrong, I like when someone creates a better version of something existing. For example, ripgrep is fantastic. But seeing the recent trend of rewriting whatever in Rust just because, I can't help wondering why I should bother whether bc leaks or not...
Memory-safe, clean implementation of classic Posix "BC" calculator
11–20 of 55 posts
Re: Memory-safe, clean implementation of classic Posix "BC" calculator
#12bc (1) is nice to have, but —for my purposes— less useful than dc (1), because it doesn't generate arbitrary binary output.
Re: Memory-safe, clean implementation of classic Posix "BC" calculator
#13Re: Memory-safe, clean implementation of classic Posix "BC" calculator
#14I am still waiting for Rust people to do something new and innovative. I acknowledge that Rust itself is innovative, don't get me wrong, But where are the true proof-of-concept projects such as the Linux kernel, qemu, git, postgresql, vim, etc. of the Rust world? Rewriting code is a waste of time of time, fragments the eco system, and introduces new bugs. And with a new focus on memory safety and analysis tools and s…
Re: Memory-safe, clean implementation of classic Posix "BC" calculator
#15I am still waiting for Rust people to do something new and innovative. I acknowledge that Rust itself is innovative, don't get me wrong, But where are the true proof-of-concept projects such as the Linux kernel, qemu, git, postgresql, vim, etc. of the Rust world? Rewriting code is a waste of time of time, fragments the eco system, and introduces new bugs. And with a new focus on memory safety and analysis tools and s…
Re: Memory-safe, clean implementation of classic Posix "BC" calculator
#16Am I the only one who thinks we need less short-lived tools written in memory-safe languages an more system infrastructure written in said languages? Don't take me wrong, I like when someone creates a better version of something existing. For example, ripgrep is fantastic. But seeing the recent trend of rewriting whatever in Rust just because, I can't help wondering why I should bother whether bc leaks or not...
I think this is the general "rewriting solves all problems" fallacy, which is rarely true, but who wants to maintain existing code, if there is something new and cool? So we get rewrites which largely just add new projects that then have to be maintained in parallel, because they rarely are to completely replace the old (if at all) and at some point the new is not cool anymore and that it is just another thing. I like some key ideas of Rust, but overall I still like many things about C much more (stability, fast compile times, simplicity), so I would much prefer people improving memory safety in C projects.
Re: Memory-safe, clean implementation of classic Posix "BC" calculator
#17Lost as to why there is a tests folder yet the test function marked with the #[test] attribute is being added to /src: https://github.com/rustcoreutils/posixutils-rs/pull/132/comm... edit: Since the change was to the grammar saved in a separate .pest file, which is separated from the procedural code, then would that make the test an integration rather than a unit test as the "parse_program" function is public?
Re: Memory-safe, clean implementation of classic Posix "BC" calculator
#18I am still waiting for Rust people to do something new and innovative. I acknowledge that Rust itself is innovative, don't get me wrong, But where are the true proof-of-concept projects such as the Linux kernel, qemu, git, postgresql, vim, etc. of the Rust world? Rewriting code is a waste of time of time, fragments the eco system, and introduces new bugs. And with a new focus on memory safety and analysis tools and s…
There's tons of stuff of the kind you're describing in Rust, more than I care to list but I'll offer you some [1-3] that I think would interest you (based on this comment alone). If your perception of what people are doing in Rust is driven by what people post to HN, it may not reflect everything that is going on in that ecosystem. [1] https://os.phil-opp.com/ [2] https://gitlab.redox-os.org/redox-os/redox [3] https:…
Re: Memory-safe, clean implementation of classic Posix "BC" calculator
#19I am still waiting for Rust people to do something new and innovative. I acknowledge that Rust itself is innovative, don't get me wrong, But where are the true proof-of-concept projects such as the Linux kernel, qemu, git, postgresql, vim, etc. of the Rust world? Rewriting code is a waste of time of time, fragments the eco system, and introduces new bugs. And with a new focus on memory safety and analysis tools and s…
Aren't most of the standalone wasm runtimes written in rust?
Re: Memory-safe, clean implementation of classic Posix "BC" calculator
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's tons of stuff of the kind you're describing in Rust, more than I care to list but I'll offer you some [1-3] that I think would interest you (based on this comment alone). If your perception of what people are doing in Rust is driven by what people post to HN, it may not reflect everything that is going on in that ecosystem. [1] https://os.phil-opp.com/ [2] https://gitlab.redox-os.org/redox-os/redox [3] https:…
Fair enough, I may not have the full picture. But "writing an OS in Rust" sounds also seems the "innovative" part is that something is written in Rust. I do not need a new OS in written in a different language. I could use a good open-source CAD tool, or a good open-source FPGA tool chain (maybe those exist, I need to do some research). A language and projects written in it do not impress me if its own novelty is the…
People are building cool stuff, and happen to do it in Rust.