Post #3542191

2026-07-02 19:51 UTC

I may not but then I wouldn’t need to say that because as you acknowledged, but don’t actually seem to understand, the USP of coreutils or GNU was not simply an api, but open source technology and they delivered on that in ways where the actual merits of their contribution are unambiguous. If the “rewrite it in rust” crowd were forthcoming about shelling out the real work to c then there’d be absolutely nothing to talk about here, but then we also wouldn’t have windows sidelining their fancy modern powershell for a 2nd order rehash of unix tools by people who likely never used them. inb4 they buy a license too.

Replies (3)

@KindaABigDyl@programming.dev 2026-07-02 20:51

were forthcoming about shelling out the real work to c When did they do that?

Open ##3542189
@KindaABigDyl@programming.dev 2026-07-02 20:53

were forthcoming about shelling out the real work to c When did they shell out “real work” to C? There is no C in the repo: github.com/uutils/coreutils They aren’t wrapping the GNU coreutils in a Rust shell; it’s a total unaffiliated reverse-engineering

Open ##3542208
@edinbruh@feddit.it 2026-07-02 22:09

I would like to interject for a moment. What you are referring to as coreutils Is actually coreutils+libc+Linux… And fill the rest yourself. The “anti rust” crowd spends half of their time yapping about how you still need c in some places, then why did you get upset with calling into libc here? Are you suggesting to rewrite every rust program in C so you can have only c calling into c?

Open ##3543867