APT Rust requirement raises questions • Hacker News Board

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#61

Post by Cthulhu_ » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:27 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #26

dralley wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Converting parsers to Rust is not "pointless". Doing string manipulation in C is both an awful experience and also extremely fertile ground for serious issues.

Issues that are battle tested from ages.

Sure, which is highly valuable information that hopefully made its way into a testing / verification suite. Which can then be used to rewrite the tool into a memory-safe language, which allows a lot of fixes and edge cases that were added over time to deal with said issues to be refactored out.

Of course there's a risk that new issues are introduced, but again, that depends a lot on the verification suite for the existing tool.

Also, just because someone did a port, doesn't mean it has to be adopted or that it should replace the original. That's open source / the UNIX mentality.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#62

Post by jvanderbot » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:27 PM UTC

NetMageSCW wrote: post #37

jvanderbot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it. Building large legacy projects can be difficult and tapping into a thriving ecosystem of packages might be a good thing. But it's also possible to have "shiny object" or "grass is greener" syndrome.

“If you maintain a port without a working Rust toolchain, please ensure it has one within the next 6 months, or sunset the port.” If that’s not arrogant, I don’t know what is.

"Arrogant" does not mean "forceful" or "assertive" or "makes me angry".

This is forceful, assertive, and probably makes people angry.

Does the speaker have the authority to make this happen? Because if so, this is just a mandate and it's hard to find some kind of moral failing with a change in development direction communicated clearly.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#63

Post by estimator7292 » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:27 PM UTC

fn-mote wrote: post #23

bakugo wrote: post #2

[flagged]

> What is it about Rust fanatics [....] The universalization from one developer's post to all Rust "fanatics" is itself an unwelcome attack. I prefer to keep my discussion as civilized as possible. Just criticize the remark.

[flagged]

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#64

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:28 PM UTC

stonemetal12 wrote: post #42

fn-mote wrote: post #20

The most interesting criticism / idea in the article was that the parts that are intended for Rust-ification should actually be removed from core apt. > it would be better to remove the code that is used to parse the .deb, .ar, and .tar formats [...] from APT entirely. It is only needed for two tools, apt-ftparchive and apt-extracttemplates [...] Another interesting, although perhaps tangential, criticism was that th…

Given that Cargo is written in Rust, you would think there would be at least one battle tested solver that could be used. Perhaps it was harder to extract and make generic than write a new one?

Cargo's solver incorporates concepts that .debs don't have, like Cargo features, and I'm sure that .debs have features that Cargo packages don't have either.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#65

Post by anarki8 » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:28 PM UTC

bakugo wrote: post #15

elteto wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they are just really tired of having to deal with people who constantly object and throw every possible obstacle they can on the way.

Maybe they wouldn't experience so much pushback if they were more humble, had more respect for established software and practices, and were more open to discussion. You can't go around screaming "your code SUCKS and you need to rewrite it my way NOW" at everyone all the time and expect people to not react negatively.

> You can't go around screaming "your code SUCKS and you need to rewrite it my way NOW"

It seems you are imagining things and hate people for the things you imagined.

In reality there are situations where during technical discussions some people stand up and with trembling voice start derailing these technical discussions with "arguments" like "you are trying to convince everyone to switch over to the religion". https://youtu.be/WiPp9YEBV0Q?t=1529

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#66

Post by fainpul » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:28 PM UTC

dv35z wrote: post #31

Every time I consider learning Rust, I am thrown back by how... "janky" the syntax is. It seems to me that we ought to have a system-level language which builds upon the learnings of the past 20+ years. Can someone help me understand this? Why are we pushing forward with a language that has a Perl-esque unreadability...? Comparison: I often program in Python (and teach it) - and while it has its own syntax warts & fr…

> Is there a "Kotlin for Rust"?

While it's not a systems language, have you tried Swift?

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#67

Post by Cthulhu_ » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:28 PM UTC

NetMageSCW wrote: post #37

jvanderbot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it. Building large legacy projects can be difficult and tapping into a thriving ecosystem of packages might be a good thing. But it's also possible to have "shiny object" or "grass is greener" syndrome.

“If you maintain a port without a working Rust toolchain, please ensure it has one within the next 6 months, or sunset the port.” If that’s not arrogant, I don’t know what is.

Is it arrogant or a clear and straightforward announcement that a Decision has been made and these are the consequences? I'm not seeing any arrogance in the message myself.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#68

Post by forgotpwd16 » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:28 PM UTC

tcfhgj wrote: post #39

dv35z wrote: post #31

Every time I consider learning Rust, I am thrown back by how... "janky" the syntax is. It seems to me that we ought to have a system-level language which builds upon the learnings of the past 20+ years. Can someone help me understand this? Why are we pushing forward with a language that has a Perl-esque unreadability...? Comparison: I often program in Python (and teach it) - and while it has its own syntax warts & fr…

what makes it unreadable for you?

Legit question really. A comparative study on language readability using codes doing the same thing written idiomatically in different languages will be interesting. Beyond syntax, idioms/paradigm/familiarity should also play role.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#69

Post by raincole » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:30 PM UTC

dv35z wrote: post #31

Every time I consider learning Rust, I am thrown back by how... "janky" the syntax is. It seems to me that we ought to have a system-level language which builds upon the learnings of the past 20+ years. Can someone help me understand this? Why are we pushing forward with a language that has a Perl-esque unreadability...? Comparison: I often program in Python (and teach it) - and while it has its own syntax warts & fr…

> Why are we pushing forward with a language that has a Perl-esque unreadability...?

The reason is the same for any (including Perl, except those meme languages where obfuscation is a feature) language: the early adopters don't think it's unreadable.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#70

Post by Cthulhu_ » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:30 PM UTC

tcfhgj wrote: post #32

chillfox wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

actually a vegan has to preach to some degree, otherwise it would be like a human rights advocate looking away when humans are tortured

That's a bit of a jump. Veganism is a personal lifestyle / dietary choice. Objecting to livestock is activism. You can do either without the other.