[jaas]

Rust is generally a much better tool for building software than C. When your software is built with better tools, you will most likely get better software (at least eventually / long term, sometimes a transition period can be temporarily worse or at least not better).

[monkeyelite]

That would be a stronger argument if people were facing implementation deficiencies in git

[IshKebab]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean but of course people are facing implementation deficiencies in Git. Last I checked submodules were still "experimental" and extremely buggy, and don't work at all with worktrees. (And yeah submodules suck but sometimes I don't have a choice.)

[mariusor]

Your reply seems to imply that using rust would make submodules better. Since that's not the case, maybe you can provide an alternative where rust would address an actual issue git users have.

[IshKebab]

No, I'm implying that it would make Git's implementation of submodules less buggy. That is likely the case.

[mariusor]

If we're talking about feelings, I find it "not likely" unless, perhaps as a side-effect of rethinking the whole feature all together. Or do you have some actual indicators that the issues with how modules are likely to break your work directory are related to problems that rust avoids?

[IshKebab]

Yes I do. Rust's strong type system makes logic bugs less likely, because you can encode more invariants into the type system.

This also makes it easier to refactor and add features without risk of breaking things.

The borrow checker also encourages ownership structures that are less error-prone.

Finally the more modern tooling makes it easier to write tests.

If you're thinking "where is the peer reviewed study that proves this?" then there isn't one, because it's virtually impossible to prove even simple things like that comments are useful. I doubt there's even a study showing that e.g. it's easier to write Python than assembly (although that one probably isn't too hard to prove).

That doesn't mean you get to dismiss everything you disagree with simply because it hasn't been scientifically proven.

The things I'm talking about have been noted many times by many people.

[monkeyelite]

I mean I don’t encounter bugs when I use the program. So telling me rust is going to fix bugs is meh. A web browser is more interesting.

[egorfine]

> Rust is generally a much better tool for building software than C.

This is an extremely strong statement. And factually incorrect.

[johnisgood]

You missed "IMO". We get it, you love Rust and/or hate C, and if so, I wonder why. Try Ada + SPARK though if you really want REAL safety. Its track record speaks for itself.