It's self evident. One personal and very small example (many thousands is obviously less than 10 thousand) doesn't prove anything.
curl has an order of 120000 non-empty lines in c and h files.
The person who made statement of "many thousand" probably made toy applications, compared to something like curl.
More realistic would be to compare something that should have been made in curl: like the "ring" library you mentioned as a Rust answer to "openssl." Which is neither an openssl nor written in Rust.
It is far from providing the functionality of openssl. The author states that:
"ring exposes a Rust API and is written in a hybrid of Rust, C, and assembly language."
"ring is focused on general-purpose cryptography. WebPKI X.509 certificate validation is done in the webpki project, which is built on top of ring. Also, multiple groups are working on implementations of cryptographic protocols like TLS, SSH, and DNSSEC on top of ring."
Actually a wrapper, and actually much smaller than openssl.
Second, "ring" has just some 9000 lines in rs files but 13000 lines of C (as it is defined by the author to be a wrapper, not surprising). So it is still just a wrapper around the C, still orders of magnitude smaller than curl, and still unable to be actually written in Rust.
On that level, I guess the Rust people would call curl the Rust application as soon as a few .rs files would appear in curl code base. Or not.
It's simply has no sense, supporting Rust with misinformation instead of being honest about its current limitations regarding what's actually implemented and what actually doesn't use "unsafe."
It's obvious that those who suggest to others to rewrite the big projects in Rust should first show that they managed to make some much smaller safe code. Especially that they managed to make some meaningful full-Rust and safe libraries.
curl has an order of 120000 non-empty lines in c and h files.
The person who made statement of "many thousand" probably made toy applications, compared to something like curl.
More realistic would be to compare something that should have been made in curl: like the "ring" library you mentioned as a Rust answer to "openssl." Which is neither an openssl nor written in Rust.
It is far from providing the functionality of openssl. The author states that:
"ring exposes a Rust API and is written in a hybrid of Rust, C, and assembly language."
"ring is focused on general-purpose cryptography. WebPKI X.509 certificate validation is done in the webpki project, which is built on top of ring. Also, multiple groups are working on implementations of cryptographic protocols like TLS, SSH, and DNSSEC on top of ring."
Actually a wrapper, and actually much smaller than openssl.
Second, "ring" has just some 9000 lines in rs files but 13000 lines of C (as it is defined by the author to be a wrapper, not surprising). So it is still just a wrapper around the C, still orders of magnitude smaller than curl, and still unable to be actually written in Rust.
On that level, I guess the Rust people would call curl the Rust application as soon as a few .rs files would appear in curl code base. Or not.
It's simply has no sense, supporting Rust with misinformation instead of being honest about its current limitations regarding what's actually implemented and what actually doesn't use "unsafe."
It's obvious that those who suggest to others to rewrite the big projects in Rust should first show that they managed to make some much smaller safe code. Especially that they managed to make some meaningful full-Rust and safe libraries.