3 ms·

Reimplementation relying on unsafe ‘C/C++’ code (as most of the core infrastructure is written in them) is done more for marketing especially among language afi

Reimplementation relying on unsafe ‘C/C++’ code (as most of the core infrastructure is written in them) is done more for marketing especially among language aficionados. Hope someone from Rust community can write something which can match some of the core software written in Go language, which has already proven its usefulness and quality in writing systems programs in networking and system infrastructure areas. C/C++ replacement at this time is just a wishful thinking given Rust cannot work without C/C++ today, most useful crates will break if underlying C/C++ code is not maintained or updated.

imtringued 6y ago
Replacing the underlying C/C++ code (including the kernel) is a work in progress. Not everything happens all at once. I'm not talking about this project in particular. More about what will happen to the general C ecosystem.
atoav 6y ago
> Reimplementation relying on unsafe ‘C/C++’ code (as most of the core infrastructure is written in them) is done more for marketing especially among language aficionados. Let's read the page we are talking about to check your judgment: "Project Goals: a pure-rust implementation of git including transport, object database, references, cli and tui" and "Non-Goals: replicate git command functionality perfectly" Doesn't sound like they are relying on unsafe C/C++ code at all – and sounds like they are just doing it out of curiosity. Unless you mean that parts of the git infrastructure (beyond this project) use C/C++ and therefore as long as you don't rewrite everything at once, their effort remains meaningless, which would be quite a dire world view, so I am assuming you mean something different which I don't get atm.
- dragonsh 6y ago
  It rely on other crates, have they been verified not to use C/C++ (i.e. all are written from scratch without interacting with C/C++)? This software is as good as the crates it depends on to do those work. If those crates are not maintained this software will not work either. Also I am expecting down-vote of this comments as well given the way Rust community works. :-)
  - atoav 6y ago
    This wasn't about Rust – it was about you making quite vague claims about somebody's project. I don't know you, but I do write software myself and know how easy unfounded claims can go haywire. So before critiquing the work of someone else I'd rather make sure the points I make are true, actually something the person I critique could have avoided and adequate to the level of the project (e.g. a hobbyist should receive milder criticism than a big organization). So if you are claiming there is C/C++ in the dependencies – therefore the project must not be a true scottsman and should not have been written – so if you put the burden of proof on the other side, maybe it is time for you to look into the mirror, and ask yourself whether your opposition to a simple programming language is not a bit... irrational..? If a innocent project like this one makes you use that kind of rhetorical moves consider the possibility that this says more about you than about the thing you are commenting on.
  - jevgeni 6y ago
    There's valid criticism of Rust and then there's what you are doing, which feels distinctly like flat-earthism of computer science. You pick arbitrary goal posts (like, pretending that "unsafe" isn't a keyword in "real rust") and try use that to discredit a language that a lot of people have found super useful and superior in their work.

imtringued 6y ago

Replacing the underlying C/C++ code (including the kernel) is a work in progress. Not everything happens all at once. I'm not talking about this project in particular. More about what will happen to the general C ecosystem.

atoav 6y ago

> Reimplementation relying on unsafe ‘C/C++’ code (as most of the core infrastructure is written in them) is done more for marketing especially among language aficionados. Let's read the page we are talking about to check your judgment: "Project Goals: a pure-rust implementation of git including transport, object database, references, cli and tui" and "Non-Goals: replicate git command functionality perfectly" Doesn't sound like they are relying on unsafe C/C++ code at all – and sounds like they are just doing it out of curiosity. Unless you mean that parts of the git infrastructure (beyond this project) use C/C++ and therefore as long as you don't rewrite everything at once, their effort remains meaningless, which would be quite a dire world view, so I am assuming you mean something different which I don't get atm.

dragonsh 6y ago
It rely on other crates, have they been verified not to use C/C++ (i.e. all are written from scratch without interacting with C/C++)? This software is as good as the crates it depends on to do those work. If those crates are not maintained this software will not work either. Also I am expecting down-vote of this comments as well given the way Rust community works. :-)
- atoav 6y ago
  This wasn't about Rust – it was about you making quite vague claims about somebody's project. I don't know you, but I do write software myself and know how easy unfounded claims can go haywire. So before critiquing the work of someone else I'd rather make sure the points I make are true, actually something the person I critique could have avoided and adequate to the level of the project (e.g. a hobbyist should receive milder criticism than a big organization). So if you are claiming there is C/C++ in the dependencies – therefore the project must not be a true scottsman and should not have been written – so if you put the burden of proof on the other side, maybe it is time for you to look into the mirror, and ask yourself whether your opposition to a simple programming language is not a bit... irrational..? If a innocent project like this one makes you use that kind of rhetorical moves consider the possibility that this says more about you than about the thing you are commenting on.
- jevgeni 6y ago
  There's valid criticism of Rust and then there's what you are doing, which feels distinctly like flat-earthism of computer science. You pick arbitrary goal posts (like, pretending that "unsafe" isn't a keyword in "real rust") and try use that to discredit a language that a lot of people have found super useful and superior in their work.