> 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…
Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
11–20 of 400 posts
Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
#12Rust 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
Once there are a large number of core utilities implemented in Rust that show some significant practical benefit over the C versions, the situation may be different.
Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
#13Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
#14> 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…
Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
#15Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
#16All the core utils have been ported to rust for the redox project, and there are actually superior alternatives in some cases available like ripgrep.
Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
#17> 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…
Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
#18Rust 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
Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
#19Yeah, I agree: if the sole value proposition were 'security' it would be a really slow roll. cargo is the killer app IMO. Anyone who's walked a big dependency tree - download, build, oh oops this requires libfoo - download, build, oh oops that requires libbar...
But I think lots of coders land on rust because they want or need something faster or more portable than Python or JS and rust is 'easier' than C.
Re: Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
#20> 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.