I'm not sure if I understand the GPL thing. Ok, if you don't want to freely share your code, but didn't you already lost at the time where the Rust Apache2/MIT version catches up? Nobody previously limited by your GPL license will care anymore, as they just have the Rust version with the same features, due to which it doesn't matter anymore which license you have?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Rust-Written Replacement To GNU Coreutils Progressing, Some Binaries Now Faster
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by jamtapot View Postthe fact that it use an MIT license instead of GPL makes it automatically a regression - any performance gains etc don't matter
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by oleid View Post
Originally posted by pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx View Post
People writing highly optimized Rust versions of important tools we use everyday that are much faster than the originals is already a thing.
ripgrep recursively searches directories for a regex pattern while respecting your gitignore - BurntSushi/ripgrep
Lots of benchmarks: https://blog.burntsushi.net/ripgrep/
There are a bunch of other Rust versions of essential tools that are worth looking into. Some offer far better performance, some offer more intuitive syntax, some offer a bunch of nice new features, or some mix thereof.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by wswartzendruber View PostPeople rushing to defend the pile-of-shit language known as C will never cease to amaze to me.
Unless you manually enable unsafe mode, Rust doesn't permit direct memory access and that's that. Get over it.
The sooner C utilities are replaced with Rust utilities, the better off we'll all be. Hell, I just got done having to drop everything and update my Debian machines because you can corrupt PolicyKit to get root access.
What a stupid, pathetic excuse for a systems language.
While you can patch around some things with replacement functions, you really can't fix the core language stuff. We just develop an ever-growing list of mistakes and hope everyone applies that *entire* checklist to every line of code they write. That's what makes a "good C programmer." Linters would be great but have a hard time because this ah-hoc language has so much ambiguity.
Rust does away with all of this by restructuring the language to be more specific. Type system, borrow checking rules, etc. Then the compiler actually CAN understand exactly what's going on, apply all these rules at compile-time without an ocean of false positives, and find more places to cut out instructions while still being safe (unlike the infamous -O3).
Bottom line: C endures because it's an ugly hack that was just good enough, in the right place at the right time. Not because of any good properties that are still unique. We can do better now, replace it.
- Likes 9
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by sdack View PostThat you want to think of it as hypothetical is your fault. A lot of higher-level languages prevent you from making mistakes one can only do in C. Rust just is not doing much in comparison that warrants its use. Nor are there such classes of mistakes as "easy" or "very easy". It remains a matter of skill and experience. No language will make you into a better programmer when the reason for your mistake is a lack of knowledge, ignorance, laziness, or stupidity. Forcing people to program in a specific way has about as good a chance in making them even lazier as in making them more diligent. I am sure you know what I mean, don't you?
Originally posted by sdack View PostNor are there such classes of mistakes as "easy" or "very easy".
- Likes 9
Comment
-
Originally posted by Developer12 View PostPeople forget that C was made in the heat of the moment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MadCatX View PostYes, there are.Last edited by sdack; 29 January 2022, 06:47 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Comment