No, I don't think you will find a high correlation between language and tool quality.
Replacements for existing software written in Rust
121–130 of 229 posts
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#122I get the point of wanting to use safer languages but I feel this list somewhat misses the point and looks more like some misguided worship to a single language. For example a lot of complaints that can be made about C and C++ don’t apply to Haskell yet this list parades a Rust counterpart to Shellcheck as if it’s automatically better just by the fact it’s written in Rust (frankly, I’d rather trust the more mature Sh…
I mostly agree with this sentiment but I think it's not that necessary to point out. Yes, some of these are abandonware but many are written by the same set of strong Rust programmers. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that ripgrep or fd is not a valuable contribution to the OSS ecosystem. The more interesting question is - why is that? Sure, Rust is memory safe, but I suspect the real reason people built high q…
Do we actually have factual evidence that people do write high quality software in Rust.
Something showing the average rust program is "higher quality" than the average C++ program?
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#123Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#124Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fan of the language I also don't get this. I mean I welcome wider adoption of Rust for various reasons, but this whole "it's written in Rust!" checkbox filling doesn't have any connection to what matters in reality. If you're rewriting something anyway, or creating something new then Rust should be considered. But a lot of the value of old software is not the set of features listed in the Readme. Not every area…
Would you feel better about this is if the badge was "Written in a memory-safe language"?
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#126Wow, a lot of hate for this list, but I'll unpick something that is slightly below the surface here: We are currently seeing a bit of a command line renaissance. The justification for this is a 'rust rewrite', but as many have pointed out, just because something is in such-and-such a language doesn't make it good. However, what I tend to find with the new rust CLI tools is that they bring with them modern design sens…
My biggest problem with this list is that when I write shell scripts, I usually intend for them to be used by colleagues or others. Having non-POSIX applications used in these scripts means that portability is limited. Yes, I know that with aliases I can override this, but I’m not convinced yet that straying from “this will work on everyone’s machine” to “set an alias for X, and X will probably be an appropriate stan…
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#127Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#128Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly agree with this sentiment but I think it's not that necessary to point out. Yes, some of these are abandonware but many are written by the same set of strong Rust programmers. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that ripgrep or fd is not a valuable contribution to the OSS ecosystem. The more interesting question is - why is that? Sure, Rust is memory safe, but I suspect the real reason people built high q…
> but I suspect the real reason people built high quality software in Rust is because cargo is good Do we actually have factual evidence that people do write high quality software in Rust. Something showing the average rust program is "higher quality" than the average C++ program?