Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

uutils 0.0.21 Released With More Improvements For GNU Coreutils Written In Rust

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by kloczek View Post

    Just please try to check how much CPU cache has your computer CPU.
    coreutils isn't exactly that cpu intensive for most people.

    Besides, cache is only 1 thing that goes into performance. If your argument is that the rust binaries will be too slow, then fine - that's easy enough to benchmark. Make that argument, not that it's "too big".

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by kloczek View Post

      Just please try to check how much CPU cache has your computer CPU.
      What you call "big" is simply code that, in the case of utils written in C, is part of glibc rather than the binary. It's still there, occupying the cache all the same.
      Last edited by jacob; 04 September 2023, 07:49 PM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by rmfx View Post
        Too many dependencies.
        Just batch the stuff so it's not relying on 200 packages...
        No thanks. I don't want the utIls to come with a 100 different, their own incomplete, broken and vulnerable implementations of command line parsing, date parsing and conversions, Unicode support or color support. Just one of each, done fully and correctly and once for all, shared across all programs as dependencies will do just fine.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by kloczek View Post
          Pointless project.
          Rust binaries will be waaay bigger than coreutils one.
          not useless at all, been using them on windows for a while and they are quite nice, 6MB IMO isn't really bad for the whole package, yeah it is bigger then something like busybox, but coreutils on windows is about the same or so for all of the binaries downloaded from msys, not sure what they may be linked to.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by BesiegedAce View Post

            Size isn't the only factor that has to be considered
            What are the other factors?

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by kloczek View Post

              What are the other factors?
              Safety, especially given that these binaries process untrusted input. Performance. Error handling. Correctness. Usability on less common CPU architectures (this one works against using Rust).

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by jacob View Post

                No thanks. I don't want the utIls to come with a 100 different, their own incomplete, broken and vulnerable implementations of command line parsing, date parsing and conversions, Unicode support or color support. Just one of each, done fully and correctly and once for all, shared across all programs as dependencies will do just fine.
                How many of those do uutil use? What is the equivalent in coreutils?

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by jacob View Post

                  No thanks. I don't want the utIls to come with a 100 different, their own incomplete, broken and vulnerable implementations of command line parsing, date parsing and conversions, Unicode support or color support. Just one of each, done fully and correctly and once for all, shared across all programs as dependencies will do just fine.
                  Never heard of the key engineering principles, where the more complex (except redundancy) and dependant a system is, the more fragile it becomes ?

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by darkonix View Post

                    How many of those do uutil use? What is the equivalent in coreutils?
                    They all parse command line args, they all either support or SHOULD support Unicode, many of them handle dates, etc.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by rmfx View Post

                      Never heard of the key engineering principles, where the more complex (except redundancy) and dependant a system is, the more fragile it becomes ?
                      There is nothing key about this "principle". Rather it's a myth among people who are too incompetent to be able to tackle the inherent and unavoidable complexity. If it were true, we would all be using Sinclair XZ81's, or the operating system of choice would still be MS-DOS.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X