4 ms·
Instead of the stock complaint about titles including "written in Rust," I'd like to acknowledge that the standard of excellence seems to be higher for tools wr
by faitswulff 4y ago
Instead of the stock complaint about titles including "written in Rust," I'd like to acknowledge that the standard of excellence seems to be higher for tools written in Rust than others. Perhaps that's a consequence of their recency - either way, it would be interesting to hear some cases where tooling built in Rust falls short compared to those written in other languages.
- nicoburns 4y agoI imagine a key benefit here is going to be performance, because a lot of Python tooling is written in Python which will be significantly slower.
- xyzzy4747 4y agoThe first rule of Python should be that if you have to use loops, don’t code it in pure Python.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- travisjungroth 4y agoI love ruff. Some reasons it ended up being better that aren’t “standard of excellence”. #1 Second-mover advantage. It got to learn from all the existing tools, skip all that. #2 Deduplicated work. Three separate linters means parsing the code three times. A “do everything” does it once. #3 Rust is faster than Python. These things combine into someone showing up and suddenly making a tool that a lot of people are using to replace 3+ tools. But that doesn’t mean the previous versions are bad. They were necessary to be where we’re at.
- avgcorrection 4y agoSo instead of a side-topic complaint about “written in Rust”, you’re requesting an off-topic discussion about whatever other tooling than this which is both written in Rust and that is bad?