Rust-Written Replacement To GNU Coreutils Progressing, Some Binaries Now Faster

[skeevy420]

The argument as to which license is "more free" depends on your definition of freedom (your rights vs others rights). And in the end, your software, your choices, as both respect *a* definition of freedom. Those that do not like someone else's freedom do not really believe in freedom.

Well said.

[sdack]

Very bad analogy. ...

No, not at all. The point is simplicity. You just do not see it.

[skeevy420]

And each of these new wheels is made for a specific purpose that these cannot really be used anywhere else than their intended place. These all do the same and trade simplicity for complexity and lose their usefulness. If you cannot see this then you can also not see why C is still successful.

Link to me a generic wheel that works everywhere.

.....You do realize that every wheel in history has been made for a specific task?

[caligula]

That might be true for a lot of software but not coreutils, its such a core part of Linux and its had so many eyes look at it that you can assume that at minimum its had countless of hours put into it.

look at this way, if something in coreutils is slow then a **lot** of software is slow, its a central part of the ecosystem.

Coreutils mainly contains utilities used in bash scripts. Half of the tools are simple command line utilies that don't need to perform that fast and have no use outside bash scripts. E.g. commands like [, true, false, nproc, echo.. FWIW, the GNU versions of true and false are probably among the slowest ever invented since they have all sorts of i18n gettext dependencies while a simple implementation would just return a single value.

[skeevy420]

No, not at all. The point is simplicity. You just do not see it.

No, you're pointing out supposed simple things that haven't changed at all. They have changed. A lot.

We name Eras of History based on how blade technology changed:

Stone Age
Bronze Age
Iron Age

One can argue that Copper Age could go between Stone and Bronze, that we're currently in the Steel Age, and that there's the possibility of a Bone Age before the Stone Age.

Bone, Stone, Copper, Bronze, Iron, Steel. There you go -- 6 materials on just Blade Technology changing through the eons.

[sdack]

Link to me a generic wheel that works everywhere.

.....You do realize that every wheel in history has been made for a specific task?

Wheels get used for various tasks even when these were made for a single one initially. But I am still talking about simplicity. You should not take the wheel and the other examples too literally. When you then do not like simplicity, because you cannot handle it then it is your loss.

[sdack]

Bone, Stone, Copper, Bronze, Iron, Steel. There you go -- 6 materials on just Blade Technology changing through the eons.

People even invented the letter opener, which is basically a blade without a cutting edge, sort of like Rust. You just keep overthinking it. It still is about simplicity.

[skeevy420]

People even invented the letter opener, which is basically a blade without a cutting edge, sort of like Rust. You just keep overthinking it. It still is about simplicity.

Who's the bigger Sofa King? The Sofa King or the one who keeps replying?

On that note, you have a good day.

[MadCatX]

Exactly, and Rust is not going to change this. You will keep making mistakes and run off to the next pasture.

Your attempts to save this argument by misquoting me are not going to get you anywhere. The very next sentence from the paragraph you quoted says

Sometimes, having a technical measure that prevents a mistake from being made is the only thing that works.

You see the gains, but not the losses and so again keep wandering pastures. A modern car wheel consumes large amounts of energy in its production and burdens the environment quite a bit. A wooden wheel can be made by anyone and is far more environmentally friendly. Stainless steel is no different. It is composed of several metals, from chrome to molybdenum, and uses equally a lot of energy in its production. It is sad that in a time when the whole world tries to cut down on CO2 you still think you could do no wrong. Do you even know that we use more resources right now than the planet can regenerate? You probably think there is no limit to it.

How do manufacturing and environmental factors apply to programming languages? This is supposed to be an analogy, remember?

[_ONH_]

The argumentations in this thread are mostly stupide.

In mechanical engineering your mostly required to create the mechanism failsafe and state of the art, if you want to stay out of jail if someone gets killed by it.
While moste management and software seems to be designed to release without even beeing checked if there are corner cases which could could lead to failure.
If there is found a failure of any kinde the software seems to get added mitigation on mitigation on mitigation instead of redesigning the toxic junk to not have memory leaks.

From this perspective it is quite inexplainable to me if someone starts a new project today with tools less than state of the art (which prevent memory leak cve) to begin with ... That is like designing mechanical Systems like they did in the 50s, aligne and drill while assembled that is just shit ist just no more state of the art because the milling and turning tools can achive precision to allow parts to be manufactured to spec.
And yes there are still a lot of retarded engineeres which thel the mechanic they should fit the things together and then drill an bolt them together, sure one can still do it today but it has a cost.
Which means in mostly on each iteration/machine the mechanic has to spend 3-4h to make things aligne. This instead of inserting the 2 bolts to align the parts and inserting the 8 screws and turn them to the specified torq, which mostly takes 1-2 min per part which in my case results in 15 min to compare to the above 3-4h. Scale it to 10, 20 machines per week. In the end the mechanic gets scolded if it takes much time to build the machine, instead of gripping the retarded mechanical engineer (team lead/bwl project lead) and throw him out of the window ... it's pretty oblivious that the way to go is to use the state of the art tools and mindset to create things and not staying retarded.

Sure one can ask if there is a point in reimplementing an old tool which does not have issues in a new language. If a tool does work as intended without malice side effects there might be no reason to do so.

About the license free is the chois of the creators if they want to give it away with no strings attachet they should go mit if they want the greedy bigcorp to be required to contribute modifications they should put it unter gpl. The freedomness is chosen not by the stupide none stakeholder lingering arround.
But one might argue the api are gpl if the first implementation is gpl therefor all implementations should stay under the same license ...