What an absolute shitshow

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (31 children)
  • [–] 42 points 2 months ago (30 children)

    GNU Coreutils have worked very well for so long so replacing it is totally pointless unless memory safety has crippled the project somehow till now.

    Also I really hate that project for another reason - License

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (28 children)
  • [–] 39 points 2 months ago* (26 children)

    Rust is absolutely not faster or easier than C. It's safer but that's it.

    The issue with the rust utils license is that its MIT. Which many people see as vastly inferior to GPL. This is a very big deal to people who believe in the GPL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    It is definitely easier.

    Don't try and tell me cargo is not easier than fucking around with the C/CPP build slop I've had to screw around with over the years.

    The coreutils license is bullshit but let's not pretend languages have not improved in 50 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Cargo != Rust

    There is no word in which the borrow checker is easier to deal with than C.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    I think responding to borrow checker errors is easier than debugging some random segfault

    Also I don't separate the language and it's build system. I have to use it to write the language it's an entire kit.

    Part of c/cpp problem is it's build system and dependency story just serves to get in my way instead of letting me write code. The syntax is irrelevant when I'm fucking with some auto conf script because the version on my machine is 0.01 versions different.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Rust is absolutely not faster or easier than C. It’s safer but that’s it.

    Depends on what you mean by "easier". It is easier to write safe code in Rust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Memory safe!

    Not any other kind of safety.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, that's what Rust is about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Depends on what you do, really.

    Dangers of this project:

    • compatibility in edge-cases
    • experts of their tool vs. jokel of all
    • maturity of the code
    • scope creep
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    No, it does not depend on what I do. In Rust it is by definition easier to write safe code than in C.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Sure does. If the tool was used for 50 years and 1000s times checked (also by criminals), your reimplementarion will not be safer for a whole while, memory safety or not. Especially with that huge scope.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    Ehm, thats not what I said? Let try me again: If you write code in C and in Rust, both spend about 5 years time and check them equally often, with equally amount of experience, then it is by default easier to write the safe code in Rust. Because Rust is safe by default.

    If you compare a new project to an old project, that has nothing to do with my statement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    But we have the context "Rust coreutils" here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The statement I was referring to and answering to wasn't in context. It was an absolute statement about the language itself:

    Rust is absolutely not faster or easier than C. It’s safer but that’s it.

    I am not suggesting that throwing decades old tested and developed code is immediately safer than rewriting it from scratch. Sometimes a rewrite (be it in same language or different) might result in better code, given time. But that is not what I was replying and discussing to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    They're also free and open source, which unix wasn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    And which license do you suppose you gain/lose more from?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I actually don't have to do that at all. It'd be one thing if i, or anyone else in this thread, were saying that the problem with derivative works is that they aren't originals, but that's not the point at all.
    This isn't about venerating copyright in the abstract, it's about infrastructure and longgevity.
    If you're not just shit posting and actually want to understand the issues at stake, it just so happens that i wrote bout this yesterday:

    https://reddthat.com/comment/27650211

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments