4 ms·

I wonder if I'm the only one with this phobia: i see a tool written in a dynamically typed language and automatically trust it less. Especially something that i

I wonder if I'm the only one with this phobia: i see a tool written in a dynamically typed language and automatically trust it less. Especially something that is responsible for all my data. I wonder if this is a good candidate project to be rewritten in rust.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
blattimwind 7y ago
It actually would be for several reasons, which I could outline if people are interested (but I suspect they are not, so I will not go to the effort per-emptively). Also yes, there have been a number of bugs specifically due to both dynamic typing of the code and the dynamic data structures (msgpack, basically JSON) used.
- jmiserez 7y ago
  I used borg for a while but the bugs you mentioned and some of the discussions in the Github issues gave me pause. For my taste, there is still too much development going on for me to rely on it as my main backup solution.
tarruda 7y ago
Software written in dynamically typed languages can be robust, just as software written in the most strongly typed language can still be buggy. As an user of such critical piece of software, I would ask the following questions: * Is the software popular? * For how many years it has been battle tested? * Are there many reports of data corruption? * Is it well maintained? * Do the maintainers provide support? Borg/Attic has been greatly used for many years now and check all the boxes above. I don't think I've ever read about data corruption that was caused by a bug in it. Which language it is written in is nothing more than a mere curiosity for me.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  Test suite, uses analysis tools?
zmix 7y ago
I feel, that, if someone would write a backup solution from scratch and use Rust, that may be a good selling point. Emphasis on scratch not on RIR ("rewrite in Rust") ;-) It would need to respect heterogenous networks (Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy, for example), networks at all, meaning global deduplication, full volume imaging and file-level backups.
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
And what tool do you use currently? Active development and large user base seem way more important than what language they used.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

blattimwind 7y ago

It actually would be for several reasons, which I could outline if people are interested (but I suspect they are not, so I will not go to the effort per-emptively). Also yes, there have been a number of bugs specifically due to both dynamic typing of the code and the dynamic data structures (msgpack, basically JSON) used.

jmiserez 7y ago
I used borg for a while but the bugs you mentioned and some of the discussions in the Github issues gave me pause. For my taste, there is still too much development going on for me to rely on it as my main backup solution.

tarruda 7y ago

Software written in dynamically typed languages can be robust, just as software written in the most strongly typed language can still be buggy. As an user of such critical piece of software, I would ask the following questions: * Is the software popular? * For how many years it has been battle tested? * Are there many reports of data corruption? * Is it well maintained? * Do the maintainers provide support? Borg/Attic has been greatly used for many years now and check all the boxes above. I don't think I've ever read about data corruption that was caused by a bug in it. Which language it is written in is nothing more than a mere curiosity for me.

mixmastamyk 7y ago
Test suite, uses analysis tools?

zmix 7y ago

I feel, that, if someone would write a backup solution from scratch and use Rust, that may be a good selling point. Emphasis on scratch not on RIR ("rewrite in Rust") ;-) It would need to respect heterogenous networks (Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy, for example), networks at all, meaning global deduplication, full volume imaging and file-level backups.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago

And what tool do you use currently? Active development and large user base seem way more important than what language they used.