3 ms·

You can't "just ban" new dependencies in an ecosystem where they are so pervasive otherwise the ban becomes a roadblock to progress in no time. Sorry I have a

by hu3 2y ago

You can't "just ban" new dependencies in an ecosystem where they are so pervasive otherwise the ban becomes a roadblock to progress in no time. Sorry I have a problem with "just" word in tech.

kibwen 2y ago
This appears to be implying that rolling your own libraries from scratch is not a roadblock in C and C++, but somehow would be in Rust. That's a double standard. Rust makes it easy to use third-party dependencies, and if you don't want to use third-party dependencies, then you're no worse off than in C.
- hu3 2y ago
  Or, you know, leverage Go/.NET/JVM standard libraries for 99.999% of software and get shit done because there's more to memory safe solutions than just Rust. Not to mention C/C++ dependency situation is a low bar to clear.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    If you can tolerate a garbage collector and interpreter overhead, sure. Rust's main niche is things that would have formerly been written in C++.
sandywaffles 2y ago
No one is forcing you to use a dependency. Write the code yourself just like you would in another language. Or vendor the dependency and re-write/delete/whatever the code you don't like.
- hu3 2y ago
  Sorry but down here in Earth, not having unlimited resources and time does force us to use dependencies if you want to get things done. The line has to be drawn somewhere. And that line is much more reasonable when you can trust large trillion dollar backed standard libraries from the likes Go or .NET, in contrast to a fragmented ecosystem from other languages. What good is vendoring 4 million lines of code if I have to review them anyway at least once? I'd rather have a strong MSFT/GOOGL standard library which I can rely upon and not have to audit, thank you very much.
School-Cotton 2y ago
Indeed, you wouldn't really be participating in the "rust ecosystem" at that point. I'm not disputing that it'd be a lot more difficult. The experience would be similar to using C++.

by hu3 2y ago

You can't "just ban" new dependencies in an ecosystem where they are so pervasive otherwise the ban becomes a roadblock to progress in no time. Sorry I have a problem with "just" word in tech.

kibwen 2y ago

This appears to be implying that rolling your own libraries from scratch is not a roadblock in C and C++, but somehow would be in Rust. That's a double standard. Rust makes it easy to use third-party dependencies, and if you don't want to use third-party dependencies, then you're no worse off than in C.

hu3 2y ago
Or, you know, leverage Go/.NET/JVM standard libraries for 99.999% of software and get shit done because there's more to memory safe solutions than just Rust. Not to mention C/C++ dependency situation is a low bar to clear.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  If you can tolerate a garbage collector and interpreter overhead, sure. Rust's main niche is things that would have formerly been written in C++.

sandywaffles 2y ago

No one is forcing you to use a dependency. Write the code yourself just like you would in another language. Or vendor the dependency and re-write/delete/whatever the code you don't like.

hu3 2y ago
Sorry but down here in Earth, not having unlimited resources and time does force us to use dependencies if you want to get things done. The line has to be drawn somewhere. And that line is much more reasonable when you can trust large trillion dollar backed standard libraries from the likes Go or .NET, in contrast to a fragmented ecosystem from other languages. What good is vendoring 4 million lines of code if I have to review them anyway at least once? I'd rather have a strong MSFT/GOOGL standard library which I can rely upon and not have to audit, thank you very much.

School-Cotton 2y ago

Indeed, you wouldn't really be participating in the "rust ecosystem" at that point. I'm not disputing that it'd be a lot more difficult. The experience would be similar to using C++.