[Zababa]

I don't think that list misses the point, a lot of what's in here is actually a better/more modern alternative. Starting with "An experimental container runtime" isn't a great idea, but bat, tokei, dust, fd, skim, exa, fnm, hyperfine, tealdeer and just are all serious projects. I do think the list could be curated a bit harder (and ripgrep should be added, fortunately there's already a pull request).

> And a lot of those projects are just someone’s pet project, often written as a task for learning Rust, and certainly likely to have numerous new bugs that haven’t yet been found just by virtue of being a ground up rewrite.

I'd say 6 of them are not as serious as the others, but even them have 5 contributors or more. Is this what you mean by "a lot", 6 out of 34 (at the time of writing this) ?

[laumars]

“A lot” is certainly a subjective term and thus open to interpretation. One might argue that the entirety of the collection isn’t “a lot” since it only amounts to 34. Others might argue that 17% is “a lot” as it’s that means near enough 1 in 5 projects isn’t mature and that’s a pretty poor signal to noise ratio.

If the repo advertised itself as a curated list of interesting Rust alternatives to standard tools then I probably wouldn’t have commented. But it said “replacements” and that suggests a higher level of maturity and community support.

[cestith]

My take is that was just poor wording and they should be considered alternatives or potential future replacements in progress. Once you give up on that word, the page makes more sense.

[laumars]

More sense in one regard but less sense in another. If you’re curating a list of alternative software that is acknowledged not to be mature in all instances, then the arguments for making it Rust specific become moot since it’s no long a curated list of more secure software.