5 ms·

I don't know which community is toxic and wouldn't even risk using such strong term. Still, I have to say, it's really weird to see (last few months) everythin

I don't know which community is toxic and wouldn't even risk using such strong term. Still, I have to say, it's really weird to see (last few months) everything being rewritten into Rust, just for the sake of pride(?). Haven't we learned anything from the NodeJS craze?

josephcsible 5y ago
> just for the sake of pride(?). It's to prevent all memory safety bugs.
- kangalioo 5y ago
  Partly true, but this doesn't apply to many rewritten tools, like cat or ls where memory safety bugs are tolerable
  - ansible 5y ago
    Well, I don't know about the cat command (though that _is_ appropriate for something like the Redox OS, which aspires to be a pure-Rust desktop operating system). But there is a broad-based desire to rewrite libraries in Rust for a couple (IMHO valid) reasons. One is the API. While it is possible to have a nice and idiomatic Rust API to a C library, it will often be nicer to use when it is designed from the ground-up in Rust. Traits, interfaces, etc. It is also often desirable to avoid C when cross-compiling (such as for embedded systems), as that is generally a hassle to set up and get working seamlessly.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Doesn't sound like things where you'd want bugs either. But also the rewrites for this kind of thing are usually not that "serious". A few people do it because they can or because they think it's interesting, but it's not like there are large pushes to replace such tools (E.g. there's been "lets rewrite basic tools in Go" projects too, and nobody is surprised that they aren't in widespread use"). The winners usually are not in that category, but tools that stand alone.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    I see no evil here. For many it is probably just a hobby project they can practice their rust skills on. Also, it’s not like rewriting such trivial tools as cat in rust would cause any conceivable amount of useless churn. They are not rewriting complete ecosystems.
- lenkite 5y ago
  And to increase binary size by 5x.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Obligatory link to https://github.com/johnthagen/min-sized-rust https://github.com/johnthagen/min-sized-rust

josephcsible 5y ago

> just for the sake of pride(?). It's to prevent all memory safety bugs.

kangalioo 5y ago
Partly true, but this doesn't apply to many rewritten tools, like cat or ls where memory safety bugs are tolerable
- ansible 5y ago
  Well, I don't know about the cat command (though that _is_ appropriate for something like the Redox OS, which aspires to be a pure-Rust desktop operating system). But there is a broad-based desire to rewrite libraries in Rust for a couple (IMHO valid) reasons. One is the API. While it is possible to have a nice and idiomatic Rust API to a C library, it will often be nicer to use when it is designed from the ground-up in Rust. Traits, interfaces, etc. It is also often desirable to avoid C when cross-compiling (such as for embedded systems), as that is generally a hassle to set up and get working seamlessly.
- detaro 5y ago
  Doesn't sound like things where you'd want bugs either. But also the rewrites for this kind of thing are usually not that "serious". A few people do it because they can or because they think it's interesting, but it's not like there are large pushes to replace such tools (E.g. there's been "lets rewrite basic tools in Go" projects too, and nobody is surprised that they aren't in widespread use"). The winners usually are not in that category, but tools that stand alone.
- kaba0 5y ago
  I see no evil here. For many it is probably just a hobby project they can practice their rust skills on. Also, it’s not like rewriting such trivial tools as cat in rust would cause any conceivable amount of useless churn. They are not rewriting complete ecosystems.
lenkite 5y ago
And to increase binary size by 5x.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Obligatory link to https://github.com/johnthagen/min-sized-rust https://github.com/johnthagen/min-sized-rust