Live data from Hacker News

Replacements for existing software written in Rust

github.com

121–130 of 229 posts

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#122
post #8

I 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…

> 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?

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#124
I compiled a list of modern replacements for unix commands [0]. While many of them are written in Rust, there are C, Go, and Python programs on that list as well, because I feel the point is not what language the tool is written in, as long as it solves a problem or is an improvement over existing tooling in some way. Not a knock against this list, I just think it is better to list all tools that may be useful to people, rather than excluding some simply because of the creator's choice of language.

[0]: https://github.com/ibraheemdev/modern-unix

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#125

Earlier 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"?

tbh, I would feel better if the badge was "tested for 50 years on every system you can think of"

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#126
post #52

Wow, 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…

It's a fair point, but I find I can get along quite well using the new tools myself interactively and falling back to the standard versions if I need to write a shareable script. For me the degree to which ripgrep is better for day-to-day use more than outweighs the cost of remembering how to use grep once in a while.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#129

Earlier 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?

It's unlikely that this evidence exists, and if the 'clone everything to get past the borrow checker' attitude is commonplace then we get stuck on what 'high quality' means.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#130
I (mostly) love Rust, but the fact is that it makes lots of easy things hard. Most software should be written in a GC language. Even Java or Go are a better choice for most “backend” development, despite the fact that from a PL design standpoint they’re vastly inferior to Rust.
Post reply on HN