Rust is generally a much better tool for building software than C. When your software is built with better tools, you will most likely get better software (at least eventually / long term, sometimes a transition period can be temporarily worse or at least not better).

▲

monkeyelite 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

That would be a stronger argument if people were facing implementation deficiencies in git

▲

IshKebab 3 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean but of course people are facing implementation deficiencies in Git. Last I checked submodules were still "experimental" and extremely buggy, and don't work at all with worktrees. (And yeah submodules suck but sometimes I don't have a choice.)

▲

mariusor 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Your reply seems to imply that using rust would make submodules better. Since that's not the case, maybe you can provide an alternative where rust would address an actual issue git users have.

▲

IshKebab 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, I'm implying that it would make Git's implementation of submodules less buggy. That is likely the case.

▲

mariusor 2 days ago | parent [-]

If we're talking about feelings, I find it "not likely" unless, perhaps as a side-effect of rethinking the whole feature all together. Or do you have some actual indicators that the issues with how modules are likely to break your work directory are related to problems that rust avoids?

▲

IshKebab 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes I do. Rust's strong type system makes logic bugs less likely, because you can encode more invariants into the type system.

This also makes it easier to refactor and add features without risk of breaking things.

The borrow checker also encourages ownership structures that are less error-prone.

Finally the more modern tooling makes it easier to write tests.

If you're thinking "where is the peer reviewed study that proves this?" then there isn't one, because it's virtually impossible to prove even simple things like that comments are useful. I doubt there's even a study showing that e.g. it's easier to write Python than assembly (although that one probably isn't too hard to prove).

That doesn't mean you get to dismiss everything you disagree with simply because it hasn't been scientifically proven.

The things I'm talking about have been noted many times by many people.

	▲	mariusor 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		OK, but I'm not convinced for this specific case. And it wouldn't take a peer reviewed study to convince me. Issues in the git submodules handling that you could link to C's lack of safety would suffice. However what you're doing is to reply with the same platitudes and generalities that all rust aficionados seem to have ready on demand. Sure, rust is better at those things, but I don't see how that would make a rewrite of an existing feature better by default. I don't doubt that new features of git that would be written in rust will be safer and more ergonomic, but for existing code to be rewritten, which is what I understand to be your stance, I remain skeptical.

▲

monkeyelite 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean I don’t encounter bugs when I use the program. So telling me rust is going to fix bugs is meh. A web browser is more interesting.

▲

egorfine 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Rust is generally a much better tool for building software than C.

This is an extremely strong statement. And factually incorrect.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

johnisgood 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You missed "IMO". We get it, you love Rust and/or hate C, and if so, I wonder why. Try Ada + SPARK though if you really want REAL safety. Its track record speaks for itself.