3 ms·
> Many GNU, Linux and other utilities are useful, and obviously some effort has been spent in the past to port them to Windows. However, those projects are writ
by nomemory 5y ago
> Many GNU, Linux and other utilities are useful, and obviously some effort has been spent in the past to port them to Windows. However, those projects are written in platform-specific C, a language considered unsafe compared to Rust, and have other issues.
I wonder why some people in the Rust community seem to remind us every few sentences how Rust is superior to C because it's safer.
/s And now it's C, yesterday it was C++... what's next, ASM ?
- c3534l 5y agoBecause they're justifying a project whose sole difference to the other implementation is the language its written in.
- nomemory 5y agoSo it's more like a "Look, it's possible to do this in Rust!" than "We did it in Rust, and we believe it's better because ..." ?
- LeonidasXIV 5y agoIt literally says why it is better and you even quoted it: > However, those projects are written in platform-specific C, a language considered unsafe compared to Rust Or to paraphrase it using your wording: "We did it in Rust and we believe it is better because it does not have memory unsafety issues that are the number #1 reason for security issues every year"
- nomemory 5y agoSo without playing dumb or anything, you say they say: "We have security issues every year because we program in unsafe languages like C, and to solve this, we should start rewriting things in Rust because it's 'memory safe'." Amazing!