Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Introducing tmux-rs

    (richardscollin.github.io)
    857 points Jtsummers | 13 comments | 03 Jul 25 15:03 UTC | HN request time: 2.571s | source | bottom
    1. echelon ◴[03 Jul 25 16:02 UTC] No.44456424[source]▶
    I wonder if the tmux maintainers would be interested in switching to this?

    Transitioning more software from C to Rust is a great idea.

    replies(5): >>44456588 #>>44456671 #>>44456845 #>>44457370 #>>44457456 #
    2. joshka ◴[03 Jul 25 16:17 UTC] No.44456588[source]▶
    Taking a look at the source earlier, I'd guess probably not.

    If you're going to move a project to rust, you'd want to actually make it look like rust. Currently it looks like C written in rust. That doesn't make anyone happy really.

    (Obv. not a slight on the maintainer here, it's a personal project with a specific approach)

    3. uecker ◴[03 Jul 25 16:24 UTC] No.44456671[source]▶
    It is a horrible idea.
    4. zppln ◴[03 Jul 25 16:39 UTC] No.44456845[source]▶
    Seems like a bit entitled to expect being able to go around rewriting stuff and then have the old maintainers maintain it.
    replies(1): >>44458815 #
    5. yjftsjthsd-h ◴[03 Jul 25 17:33 UTC] No.44457370[source]▶
    My understanding is that tmux is primarily an OpenBSD project, and rust isn't a good fit for them (for reasons that summarize to portability problems), so it is extremely unlikely. Also, this is a hobby project that currently is all unsafe, so there's not even any particular point. (EDIT: Of course, as it gets rewritten the latter point is likely to diminish)
    replies(1): >>44459316 #
    6. aniforprez ◴[03 Jul 25 18:48 UTC] No.44458069[source]▶
    Seems like you didn't read the article at all. The author talks about writing it themselves after finding the automatically generated code not up to snuff.
    replies(1): >>44458511 #
    7. johnisgood ◴[03 Jul 25 19:41 UTC] No.44458511{3}[source]▶
    I did, but I am not having high hopes. Have you read the conclusion?
    replies(4): >>44459463 #>>44463121 #>>44463139 #>>44464358 #
    8. echelon ◴[03 Jul 25 20:18 UTC] No.44458815[source]▶
    > to expect

    I wonder, I don't expect.

    This would require first for the Rust implementation to grow beyond a POC with code translation. In its current state I doubt it could entice any of the original authors or maintainers. But if it became capable and hardened and picked up velocity, then it would pose some major questions for having two similar pieces of software.

    9. zozbot234 ◴[03 Jul 25 21:23 UTC] No.44459316[source]▶
    > rust isn't a good fit for them (for reasons that summarize to portability problems)

    These problems are largely solved now that there's a working transpiler from Rust to C - https://github.com/FractalFir/rustc_codegen_clr

    replies(1): >>44459780 #
    10. yjftsjthsd-h ◴[03 Jul 25 22:51 UTC] No.44459780{3}[source]▶
    > This project is still early in its developement. Bugs, crashes and miscompilations are expected. DO NOT USE IT FOR ANYTHING SERIOUS.

    > rustc_codegen_clr is only tested on Linux x86_64, with the CoreCLR runtime (more commonly known as simply the .NET runtime), on .NET 8. It should work on other platforms, but it is not guaranteed.

    I guess it could eventually be an option, but today it looks more like a neat tech demo.

    11. ◴[04 Jul 25 10:12 UTC] No.44463121{4}[source]▶
    12. ◴[04 Jul 25 10:15 UTC] No.44463139{4}[source]▶
    13. johnisgood ◴[04 Jul 25 13:24 UTC] No.44464350[source]▶
    Even if it is not c2rust, it is worth checking out the source code, available here: https://github.com/richardscollin/tmux-rs/tree/main/src.