←back to thread

333 points steveklabnik | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
pjmlp ◴[] No.45040934[source]
Naturally written in Rust.

I could start taking bets every time I now see a "new kind of tool" for XYZ.

I am firmly in the camp tools for specific ecosystems should be written on the language of said ecosystem.

If one is hindered by the language, maybe that isn't the right ecosystem, or therein lies the opportunity for language toolchain improvements.

replies(1): >>45042011 #
tracker1 ◴[] No.45042011[source]
Or... rust lends itself to fast executing CLI tooling... and that no language/hammer is best when you need a screwdriver.
replies(1): >>45042199 #
pjmlp ◴[] No.45042199[source]
Plenty of languages do offer AOT toolchains, and CLIs have been part of computing since we have teletypes.
replies(1): >>45042271 #
tracker1 ◴[] No.45042271{3}[source]
In this case, we're talking about ruby... does ruby output AOT, portable executables in the box?
replies(1): >>45044972 #
pjmlp ◴[] No.45044972{4}[source]
If you're willing to pay for it.

http://www.rubymotion.com/

Plus since when is AOT compilation required for CLI tools?

Half of UNIX userspace would be gone.

replies(1): >>45047646 #
tracker1 ◴[] No.45047646{5}[source]
When you're talking about portable tooling in order to install other stuff it sure helps.
replies(1): >>45048956 #
pjmlp ◴[] No.45048956{6}[source]
Apparently it was never a problem in the UNIX lifetime.
replies(1): >>45053442 #
1. tracker1 ◴[] No.45053442{7}[source]
Yep, nobody ever, not once had trouble bootstrapping something like GCC in a new environment at all, ever.