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

Replacements for existing software written in Rust

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 229 posts

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#151

Post by stouset »

dlivingston wrote: post #105
Zhyl wrote: 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…

Don’t you think it’s beyond time we start expecting people to have command-line tools newer than those written in the seventies?

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#152

Post by laumars »

cestith wrote: post #138
laumars wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A lot” is certainly a subjective term and thus open to interpretation. One might argue that the entirety of the collection isn’t “a lot” since it only amounts to 34. Others might argue that 17% is “a lot” as it’s that means near enough 1 in 5 projects isn’t mature and that’s a pretty poor signal to noise ratio. If the repo advertised itself as a curated list of interesting Rust alternatives to standard tools then I…

My take is that was just poor wording and they should be considered alternatives or potential future replacements in progress. Once you give up on that word, the page makes more sense.

More sense in one regard but less sense in another. If you’re curating a list of alternative software that is acknowledged not to be mature in all instances, then the arguments for making it Rust specific become moot since it’s no long a curated list of more secure software.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#153

Post by GuB-42 »

darthrupert wrote: post #89

These Rust replacements are unique in the way that most of them vastly improved on the original. I still don't quite understand what about Rust made that happen. They could have been easily written in, say, Nim years before Rust existed.

Remaking traditional UNIX tools is a common exercise when learning system programming.

And because Rust is quite trendy nowadays, I guess a lot of people wanted to try it out, and in some cases, that exercise turned into a viable product. Nim never got the same popularity.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#154

Post by whateveracct »

staticassertion wrote: post #132
laumars wrote: 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…

For CLI programs Rust is a really nice alternative to languages that require a runtime. I've significantly sped up the time for my bashrc to execute (my bashrc is heavy) by replacing certain tools with Rust tools. If I wanted my IDE to execute something like ShellCheck on every save, or even every few character presses, I feel like I'd much rather not have to spin up a big runtime.

I really doubt the GHC RTS is appreciably slowing down ShellCheck. Especially if its built with RTS flags optimized for startup. Feels like optimizing the wrong thing a bit.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#155

Post by scns »

Zhyl wrote: post #111
dlivingston wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Absolutely, and I think this raises the question of "in what sense are these 'replacements' for existing software?". If we see them as "immediate drop-in replacements" then the value of them must be that they're identical in every way and the value in them would be in the reduced maintenance overhead for the developers, with maybe a small performance boost if we're lucky. This would be fine, but it's not something th…

Let a thousand flowers bloom https://gigamonkeys.com/flowers/

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#156

Post by laumars »

zurn wrote: post #91
laumars wrote: 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…

Are you implying that Rust is only / mostly used as a replacement for unsafe C/C++, and Rust programs should always be evaluated in the context of this choice?

No, I’m arguing against that mindset. The git repository is what raises the “Replaced It In Rust” argument.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#157

Post by schwartzworld »

laumars wrote: 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…

> yet this list parades a Rust counterpart to Shellcheck as if it’s automatically better just by the fact it’s written in Rust

You're perceiving a sentiment from the list that I just don't get. All it is is a list of alternatives written in rust. The fact that they're written in rust, is really only valuable to people who are already interested in rust.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#158

Post by atombender »

staticassertion wrote: post #132
laumars wrote: 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…

For CLI programs Rust is a really nice alternative to languages that require a runtime. I've significantly sped up the time for my bashrc to execute (my bashrc is heavy) by replacing certain tools with Rust tools. If I wanted my IDE to execute something like ShellCheck on every save, or even every few character presses, I feel like I'd much rather not have to spin up a big runtime.

ShellCheck starts in a few milliseconds on my machine, easily fast enough to run on every character press. Haskell's runtime isn't like the Java JVM, and GHC compiles to machine code, not interpreted bytecode.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#159

Post by jlg23 »

singhrac wrote: post #102
laumars wrote: 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…

> I find it more interesting to ask the question "why do people spend so much hobby time writing interesting programs in Rust?".

Maybe just as a learning experience or to be able to say "I know $hypedLanguage." Nothing against rust on my side, but at least for me, time spent on writing something in a language new to me is in no relation to my perceived usefulness of that language.

I personally believe that people new to programming love rust because they get compiler feedback instead of runtime errors. Given what is currently en vogue, rust does stand out there. OTOH, if looking at some old, boring languages, you already have that. Minus the hype.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#160

Post by pdimitar »

cerved wrote: post #125
pdimitar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

I, too, enjoy sci-fi. :)
Post reply on HN