Hacker News Reader

Comment by mprovost | Hacker News Reader

The GNU utils were a replacement for the BSD utils which were a replacement for the original AT&T utils. Every replacement added new functionality and improvements, and every time someone complained that they didn't stick closer to the thing they replaced. Looking specifically at grep, there used to be new versions like egrep and fgrep that added functionalities beyond standard grep's, but those were eventually pulled into "standard" grep (GNU or BSD). If we stuck with standards we'd all still be using the Bourne shell. The GNU utilities have been around long enough that they feel like the standard now, but I'm glad that we're coming into a new phase of innovation in command-line utilities. And this didn't start with Rust - the new generation of search utilities started with ack (Perl) and then ag (C).

View on HN

> we'd all still be using the Bourne shell

Please forgive me my ignorance but what's wrong with bash? I'm still using it on all servers and workstations, I constantly write scripts for it, some fairly complex. It's not an obsolete project and it looks like a mainstream shell for me. Am I wrong?

Update: yeah, I realize now that this was about the original Bourne Shell, not bash.

Bash is not Bourne, and that's the point. Bash is the Bourne Again Shell, a shell written to improve and replace the Bourne shell in the GNU ecosystem. Modern bash is a huge improvement over the original Bourne shell and I'm convinced you use bash only feature basically every day, and would be very annoyed if someone forced you to use the actual Bourne shell

Ah, right! I do remember the original Bourne Shell, though. I wouldn't like to get back to using it. Though I might agree provided I get as many years of my age back.

Bash isn't the Bourne shell (sh)! It's a replacement (Bourne Again Shell). But it's interesting that the replacement has become so entrenched that folk assume that it was the original.

Yeah, got it now lol

> If we stuck with standards we'd all still be using the Bourne shell

or Korn shell.

> which were a replacement for the

You have a point here. I have to agree.

"X but rewritten in Z" is a terrible marketing, though. Makes me instantly want to hate the tool and its authors. (Love rust. Hate the vibe).

It’s a rust crate designed to be a native rust replacement for a rust c wrapper crate. It’s faster and easier to link to in rust projects.

How would you even tell people you made a better rust crate without using the word “rust?”

Why not spend the efforts to speed up the real zlib? So that the whole world actually gets to spin a bit faster.

Rust folks are claiming excellent interoperability with C binaries. Why the need for a rewrite then?

Maybe because the speed up is easier to attain in a language where you aren't constantly worrying about introducing bugs? Maybe development is easier in a language with more modern tooling?

Interoperability runs both ways, everyone currently taking a dependency on the C library can swap in the rust library in its place and see the same benefits

you would say "rewritten FOR rust" instead of "rewritten IN rust".

It’s a rust crate that depended on c and is now literally “rewritten in rust”

> rust crate

Why the hate? It's a genuine question. When you rewrite something, you need to justify the effort somehow. The GNU coreutils started out as "the BSD utilities, but with the GPL!".

Because the reimplementation authors skip all the complexities of designing the tool in the first place while getting right to the fun part (which is coding), and then they get to call themselves authors of a well known infrastructure tool.

Compare "I have typed a setuid() wrapper in rust" vs "I'm the author of sudo-rs".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com