• Axum@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is such bad take only because it singles out rust for some weird reason. Tool total rewrites take work regardless of language

      • PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Oh, it’s not the language. It’s the type of people who not only like Rust, but have a compulsion / need / fixation on re-writing existing tools. They say it’s so it’s more secure, but honestly it’s so they can apply their own opinions of how the tool should be. They always promise to make it a drop in replacement, but then then get rid of options, or change what they do… they can’t help themselves. And that is the kind of people who volunteer to port tools to Rust. If they would stick to true 1:1 replacement, this wouldn’t be an issue.

        • Ephera@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Are there other types of people? Writing software to be bug-for-bug compatible with something else is really difficult and, yes, not fun at all. You will not find many people looking to volunteer for that…

      • PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        This isn’t a rage bait comment. Show me one Rust tool replacement made that didn’t alter functionality in some way, causing edge cases, and sometimes even mainline usage, to break and scripts have to be written to accommodate. I’ve not seen it yet. If you have, I will gladly stand corrected. The language is great, it’s the programmers at issue.