Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Uutils: Cross Platform Linux Core Utils In Rust!?!" video.

That's a fair point, from a legal perspective. Counterpoint: Microsoft has already stolen GPL code and used it without redistributing the source or any changes they made and it has been proven with the source code leak of WinXP. They faced zero penalties and now they're two E's into EEE with regards to Linux and open source.
8
I don't. If the old version worked perfectly fine, why rewrite it? Why not get to work on solving a new problem? Or a problem that's old but hasn't been solved? Or writing a game? Why rewrite everything that already works, and in most cases works better than the rewrite and retains full features, when you could actually write something new?
6
If the original C program was written correctly, it probably already is portable with little or even no effort to port. A lot of the legacy code for Linux based systems actually is completely portable and can just be compiled and run. The only reason why people mistakenly think Rust is easier to port is because for all the systems it supports it's the main Rust developers that do any porting work that actually needs doing and you still have to use a compiler directive of some kind to account for it same as you would in C. The problem is that you can't use it on older systems while you can with C. And on top of all that, Rust adds a huge amount of bloat to your system. Just getting the compiler to work was a pain since none of the binaries worked I had to clone their repository and it's 2gb for just the source and the resulting binaries from building are right around 10gb. The full folder, including all the .git hidden files is about 20gb.
3
It's one of the oldest Rust projects? So what you're saying is it's not part of the meme because it started the meme.
3
Them using a non-GPL license actually has me more interested in the project. Now if only I could figure out how to make Rust cross-compile for DOS I could use this as part of a minimal boot disk / installer.
2
@vladlu6362 Decades of bug testing would disagree.
2
@vladlu6362 ripgrep can't handle all regex, PCRE doesn't even work. Faster is only better if it yields accurate output.
2
Have you seen the Rob Landley talk about building a minimal Linux system? It's only 2 hours, less if you play it at 1.75x like I do for every video.
2
I'd say it's a long time to still be working on the project. You'd think after that much time they would already have finished implementing every feature and be in maintenance mode.
2
@Cookiekeks If you can use a package manager to download it then it'll be easy. As a Slackware user I could not, so I had to build from source. However, you didn't address the complaint regarding bloat or portability as they refuse to support systems that don't have at least SSE2. I'm also going to further mention the slow compilation speed no matter what you're building and the fact that they're foolishly including tooling requirements in their "standard". As long as the compiler adheres to the standard I can use whichever one I want to compile my C code and get expected behavior. Rust only has one set of tools which requires that I depend on the main Rust team to port it or I have to do it myself. If you don't understand that complaint then there's no point in discussing it further with you.
1
@MasterHigure Maybe HTML should be abandoned, it's a garbage way of defining a document or a website.
1
@knoopx Can you really though? It kind of sounds like the same nonsense with the language used on Arduino's, which some refer to as C, and it isn't, and some refer to as C++, and it still isn't, or the "micro-"Python lie. Sure, having a pared down version of a language is neat, but less useful. And then once the uutils are on your device, how much room do you have for whatever project you were attempting? If you give me that nonsense about using a flash drive then you're not really using an embedded platform and you might as well use a Raspberry Pi. On the other hand, ToyBox exists and provides all these in less than the space of a floppy, and it was written by one man, and in C.
1
@JacksonNick-j6i For UNIX and BSD, the reason is obvious if you study history: licensing. In UNIX's case it would've inhibited open software as well as doing nearly anything you want with it, and at the time lawsuits made BSD's future viability questionable. Before all of that was settled, Linux itself was viable, so people stuck with what they knew. The reason for newer programming languages is less obvious and the goals aren't always met. In general, we've had an absolute flood of newer programmers in recent years and the proposed solution for their education, which is lacking given the modern standards, is to write a toddler-proof language so they don't make mistakes. None of them have worked because you still need to get real work done and you can't baby-proof everything and hope to achieve everything, let alone at good speed. People will claim that Rust has or can, but it's a lie because the language only solves two potential problems and not very well since the syntax is worse than C++. If you want to write correct programs, the only solution is better education, not a new language. If you accept that truth, then the only reason becomes one of wanting better ergonomics. This is why more expert programmers use certain languages over others, but they're not necessarily for newbs. Of course, if you're a newb, then Rust is probably right up your alley. I choose to get work done instead and not being a newb I'll do so without bugs while not having a babysitter.
1