Replacements for existing software written in Rust
1–10 of 229 posts
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#2He he. The name is slightly ambiguous, at least to me, I originally thought people were already rewriting Rust tools :-))
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#3Good to have a reference for such tools in one place. Added a PR for frawk [0] (awk alternative, WIP, haven't tried it yet)
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#4Why? Most of these "existing software" are tried and tested tools that have stood the test of time. Why rewrite them and introduce potential bugs? Write something new!
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#5Am 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.
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#6Am 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.
Indeed, use the right tool for the job
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#7Am 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.
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.
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#8I 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 Shellcheck).
And a lot of those projects are just someone’s pet project, often written as a task for learning Rust, and certainly likely to have numerous new bugs that haven’t yet been found just by virtue of being a ground up rewrite.
As I said, I’m fully in favour of using newer and safer languages but we need to be careful not to get carried away with thinking anything new is better simply because it’s new.
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#9He he. The name is slightly ambiguous, at least to me, I originally thought people were already rewriting Rust tools :-))
Your reading of the title is grammatically correct. "written in Rust" is a modifier, and modifiers apply to the noun that comes just before it -- in this case, "existing software". The title implies that existing software written in Rust should be replaced.
Re: Replacements for existing software written in Rust
#10Why? Most of these "existing software" are tried and tested tools that have stood the test of time. Why rewrite them and introduce potential bugs? Write something new!
Most of this are not actual rewrites, but "write-a-news", so they are not drop in replacements. Like ripgrep for example: it servers the same task, but is in some ways improvement over "tried and tested" grep.