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

51–60 of 229 posts

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#51

Post by f1refly »

csomar wrote: post #39

I know people here are a bit touchy about Rust, and writing everything in Rust. But here is one advantage I have found with Rust programs: The installation just works. Cargo, as a package manager, is just wonderful. I have lost counts of how many times my "brew" or "pacman" failed to install something. It's much worse if it's Python; and things that work in macOS are not guaranteed to compile in Linux, and vice-versa…

Pacman and cargo accomplish completely different tasks. One is a package manager for a language and a language alone, the other is a package manager for a whole operating system. Pacman can not be responsible for a build failing, since it doesnt build anything in the first place...

Apart from that, most modern languages come with a package manager nowadays. Why do you like rust more than go? Or nim? Or elixir? Or crystal?

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#52

Post by Zhyl »

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 sensibilities. They can use better conventions, better defaults, assume things like colour terminal emulators (or fallback to non-colour if not outputting to a terminal).

The experience of using them is often much different to using the old GNU versions made in the 80s which reimplement tools made in the 60s and 70s.

I'm not saying all the other criticisms in this thread aren't valid, but I think it's worth highlighting the positives of the tools mentioned in a list like this rather than just throwing negativity on it.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#53

Post by pizza234 »

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…

This is an accurate view. The "Awesome" meme is indeed a bit dangerous in this case :)

Something important to be noted that RIIR does not represent the attitude of the Rust community - actually, the instances I've read until now were from people who had little or no experience.

I think this distinction is important because there are some negative attitudes attributed to the community that I personally haven't found (e.g. "screaming" how good Rust is; committed/professional Rust developers are already busy screaming at the BCK ;)).

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#54

Post by marcus_holmes »

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…

If a common question in a job interview is "have you written any OSS projects that are used by others?" and a positive answer is expected, then this is where we end up.

Thousands of new developers, eager to learn Rust and get a job, rewriting anything they can get their hands on and pushing it out for the community to use.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#55

Post by fnord77 »

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 don't think it is worship - I think rust fans find rust fun to program in and thus are looking for projects.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#56

Post by pizza234 »

de_keyboard wrote: post #5

Am I the only one who doesn't care what a tool / software package is written in, provided it does the job? If a Rust port is superior then sure, I'll use it, but I won't use it because it was written in Rust.

It's complicated.

I absolutely care if the BT stack of my phone is written in a safe language, because many of the security flaws that make many, many Android devices permanently unsafe (due to end of support) are caused by memory unsafety.

On the other hand, I have the suspicion that Rust is voiced a bit too much by a loud minority - I like Rust as much as I don't like Golang, nonetheless I think that for the majority of non-performance critical projects, Golang may be a better fit.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#57

Post by goodpoint »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #54
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…

If a common question in a job interview is "have you written any OSS projects that are used by others?" and a positive answer is expected, then this is where we end up. Thousands of new developers, eager to learn Rust and get a job, rewriting anything they can get their hands on and pushing it out for the community to use.

...then they get the job and the library or tool goes unmaintained.

Endless churn ensues. See the javascript ecosystem.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#58

Post by pdimitar »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #54
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…

If a common question in a job interview is "have you written any OSS projects that are used by others?" and a positive answer is expected, then this is where we end up. Thousands of new developers, eager to learn Rust and get a job, rewriting anything they can get their hands on and pushing it out for the community to use.

This is not unique to Rust, it happens with literally every language somebody gets hyped with.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#59

Post by pizza234 »

laumars wrote: post #12
lmm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Language per se isn't important, but the majority of security vulnerabilities are still caused by non-memory-safe languages. So I'd regard that as a reason not to use a given software package.

Half those applications are going to have other classes of new bugs simply because it’s new code and they’ve had less people audit the code. Plus some of those original tools were already written in safe languages like Haskell.

To note that the parent post was not referring to rewrites, but to the language a package was written in first place, which is an important distinction.

Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust

#60

Post by brailsafe »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #54
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…

If a common question in a job interview is "have you written any OSS projects that are used by others?" and a positive answer is expected, then this is where we end up. Thousands of new developers, eager to learn Rust and get a job, rewriting anything they can get their hands on and pushing it out for the community to use.

Uh, is this a common question? I've never been asked anything remotely close.
Post reply on HN