2 ms·
Same thing that turned me off. There’d have been lots of cool and useful integrations popping up “for free” all over the place if they’d written it in a good li
by karatestomp 6y ago
Same thing that turned me off. There’d have been lots of cool and useful integrations popping up “for free” all over the place if they’d written it in a good library/integration language. Good language for a daemon, bad language for the reference (so, for anything halfway complicated, usually only) implementation of something intended to become a foundational protocol.
- momack2 6y ago...there are a lot of cool and useful integrations popping up: https://blog.ipfs.io/weekly-84/ https://blog.ipfs.io/weekly-84/. go-ipfs is where the majority of new development happens right now as the desktop/server implementation (compared to js-ipfs=browser & rust-ipfs=IoT) - but if you want to prove that Rust is clearly better/faster _in general_ - have at it: https://github.com/ipfs-rust/rust-ipfs https://github.com/ipfs-rust/rust-ipfs ;) I think the thing jbenet was selecting for back in 2013 was concurrency support & modularity, and golang is still a decent choice for that. Rust 1.0 didn't happen until 2015 after the go-ipfs alpha was already out - but agree it's made awesome progress since then!
- karatestomp 6y agoI don't care about performance, exactly, it's just that with (say) a C implementation if you're even halfway popular you'll end up with modules in a dozen languages (wrapping your C lib) and an apache module and a storage backend for a few databases, maybe a Linux kernel module, and so on, in no time, and they'll all be pretty much in sync with what's