Rust is absolutely not faster or easier than C. It’s safer but that’s it.
The issue with the rust utils license is that its MIT. Which many people see as vastly inferior to GPL. This is a very big deal to people who believe in the GPL.
Yeah, the only real issue I have with the “rewrite it in Rust” approach is the absolute plague of permissive licensing. It is much easier to write safe, correct code in Rust.
Sure does. If the tool was used for 50 years and 1000s times checked (also by criminals), your reimplementarion will not be safer for a whole while, memory safety or not. Especially with that huge scope.
Ehm, thats not what I said? Let try me again: If you write code in C and in Rust, both spend about 5 years time and check them equally often, with equally amount of experience, then it is by default easier to write the safe code in Rust. Because Rust is safe by default.
If you compare a new project to an old project, that has nothing to do with my statement.
The statement I was referring to and answering to wasn’t in context. It was an absolute statement about the language itself:
Rust is absolutely not faster or easier than C. It’s safer but that’s it.
I am not suggesting that throwing decades old tested and developed code is immediately safer than rewriting it from scratch. Sometimes a rewrite (be it in same language or different) might result in better code, given time. But that is not what I was replying and discussing to.
Rust is faster and easier to develop in than C. It’s also safer.
What’s wrong with the uutils license?
Rust is absolutely not faster or easier than C. It’s safer but that’s it.
The issue with the rust utils license is that its MIT. Which many people see as vastly inferior to GPL. This is a very big deal to people who believe in the GPL.
GNU coreutils are a copy of Unix utils themselves.
It is definitely easier.
Don’t try and tell me cargo is not easier than fucking around with the C/CPP build slop I’ve had to screw around with over the years.
The coreutils license is bullshit but let’s not pretend languages have not improved in 50 years.
Yeah, the only real issue I have with the “rewrite it in Rust” approach is the absolute plague of permissive licensing. It is much easier to write safe, correct code in Rust.
I think it depends on the project, when writing cp you’re not really messing around with libraries so good ol make is fine
Depends on what you mean by “easier”. It is easier to write safe code in Rust.
Memory safe!
Not any other kind of safety.
Yes, that’s what Rust is about.
So your statement that it’s easier to write safe code in rust is only (arguably) true for one aspect of safety.
Ehm no… But it makes writing memory safe code in Rust easier by default than C.
Depends on what you do, really.
Dangers of this project:
No, it does not depend on what I do. In Rust it is by definition easier to write safe code than in C.
Sure does. If the tool was used for 50 years and 1000s times checked (also by criminals), your reimplementarion will not be safer for a whole while, memory safety or not. Especially with that huge scope.
Ehm, thats not what I said? Let try me again: If you write code in C and in Rust, both spend about 5 years time and check them equally often, with equally amount of experience, then it is by default easier to write the safe code in Rust. Because Rust is safe by default.
If you compare a new project to an old project, that has nothing to do with my statement.
But we have the context “Rust coreutils” here.
The statement I was referring to and answering to wasn’t in context. It was an absolute statement about the language itself:
I am not suggesting that throwing decades old tested and developed code is immediately safer than rewriting it from scratch. Sometimes a rewrite (be it in same language or different) might result in better code, given time. But that is not what I was replying and discussing to.