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

Using Rust for 'Scripting'

chriskrycho.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: Using Rust for 'Scripting'

#11

Post by lambda »

fnovd wrote: post #4

>Writing it in Rust means I can compile it and hand it to him, and he can run it. And that’s it. As wonderful as they are, the fact that languages like Python, Perl, Ruby, JavaScript, etc. require having the runtime bundled up with them makes just shipping a tool a lot harder—especially on systems which aren’t a Unix derivative and don’t have them installed by default. I'm wondering what part of the twelve step compi…

> I'm wondering what part of the twelve step compilation process was found to be easier than simply installing Python on the target machine?

That part is something that you can control.

Giving instructions for someone non-technical to install Python and run a script with it, and then helping them figure out how to interpret those instructions, is a heck of a lot more complicated.

And yeah, you can diddle around with cx_freeze and then having to spend some time with InnoSetup or WiX to build an installer, and then do the same on OS X but putting everything into an app bundle inside of a disk image instead, and finally on Linux trying to figure out how to bundle something up to play nicely with all of the major distros and packaging systems, and get something to work, though it doesn't support cross compilation so you now need to set up and maintain three different build machines, which is definitely no simpler than the solution described.

All of these solutions have their ups and downs. But being able to relatively easily (modulo installing a linker and a few libraries) cross compile from Rust to a static executable for any of the major desktop platforms is pretty nice, after you've dealt with enough of these funky build and packaging systems or trying to walk people through figuring out how to add Python to their path on Windows.

Re: Using Rust for 'Scripting'

#12

Post by ram_rar »

I personally like rust as a systems language. But the syntax really hurts my eyes as apposed to Python. A well crafted python code is soo easy to read. Rust can soo become very messy.

Re: Using Rust for 'Scripting'

#18

Post by denfromufa »

This guy has likely not prototyped in environment such as Jupyter notebooks or ptipython. It is not just language - there is whole ecosystem build around Python scripting: pandas, matplotlib, numpy, etc. And don't forget about debuggers and IDEs once your projects grow out of scripting environment. Did I mention hooking up to GUI or web app?

Re: Using Rust for 'Scripting'

#19

Post by ajmurmann »

lambda wrote: post #11
fnovd wrote: post #4

>Writing it in Rust means I can compile it and hand it to him, and he can run it. And that’s it. As wonderful as they are, the fact that languages like Python, Perl, Ruby, JavaScript, etc. require having the runtime bundled up with them makes just shipping a tool a lot harder—especially on systems which aren’t a Unix derivative and don’t have them installed by default. I'm wondering what part of the twelve step compi…

> I'm wondering what part of the twelve step compilation process was found to be easier than simply installing Python on the target machine? That part is something that you can control. Giving instructions for someone non-technical to install Python and run a script with it, and then helping them figure out how to interpret those instructions, is a heck of a lot more complicated. And yeah, you can diddle around with…

Not inconveniencing non-technical users cannot be underlined enough. I'd rather write this in C++ which I haven't touched in ten years than explaining my parents over the phone how to install Python or even just a screen sharing solution so that I can do it. I'm still traumatized from trying to get my dad to visit 192.168.1.1 in his browser.

Re: Using Rust for 'Scripting'

#20

Post by brandur »

I love this idea. There's an implicit assumption that the reason scripting languages are suitable for scripts is that they play fast and loose with type systems, which allow enough shortcuts and escape hatches to be productive.

But that's only part of the story. Along with typing, scripting languages also had the major advantage of being fast to bootstrap and run (`ruby script.rb`) and were fully "batteries included" with good standard libraries.

These assumptions are certainly true, but they're much _more_ true when you're comparing them against "old world" languages like C, C++, or even Java. All of these require significant project scaffolding just to get running, and have varying levels of useful built-in utilities (C has almost nothing, C++ has the STL and maybe Boost if you're generous, and Java tried to have a useful core, but missed the mark in a number of places like HTTP). In the case of C and C++, complex build logic may also be required in the form of autoconf/automake/make.

Newer compiled languages like Rust just don't have these issues anymore (I'd also include Go, Crystal, and some others in the list). Project scaffolding is built right into the language (Cargo) and the standard library is about as complete as you can get (and probably better than the classical scripting languages — all of Ruby/Python/Perl missed a good API for some things like HTTP, which led to the rise of separate packages like Faraday/Requests/etc). Anything that's not in the standard library is easily retrievable through great package managers that are bundled in with the core language.

After you're over the initial learning curve of the language and standard library, it's possible to be nearly as productive in something like Rust as you can be in Python. As a bonus, you can also get reasonable reassurance that your program is correct before you run it — and even without writing an exhaustive test suite that exercises every line of code.

Post reply on HN