Re: [fossil-users] OT: Facebook engineers preferring hg to Git

2016-10-28 Thread Nathaniel Reindl
On Oct 28, 2016, at 07:33, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Perhaps true. But in my brief look at Rust I observed that you really > cannot use it effectively without also having to use Git. The two > seem closely linked. Is that incorrect? It is indeed. Sadly, the examples don't help

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Facebook engineers preferring hg to Git

2016-10-28 Thread Karel Gardas
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 10/27/16, David Mason wrote: >> >> However, the value of Rust is not simply memory management. The >> *considerably* more expressive type system, and the much more robust type >> checking can reduce

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Facebook engineers preferring hg to Git

2016-10-28 Thread Richard Hipp
On 10/27/16, David Mason wrote: > > However, the value of Rust is not simply memory management. The > *considerably* more expressive type system, and the much more robust type > checking can reduce LOC while improving both readability and safety. Perhaps true. But in my

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Facebook engineers preferring hg to Git

2016-10-27 Thread K. Fossil user
Hi, Below are answered I give to few people (Richard, etc.) who talk about this topic. > « Irony: Isn't Rust heavily dependent upon Git for its package management? So > if Hg is written in Rust, does that mean that Hg has a dependency on Git? » Rust is a language, Git is a DVCS. You can use

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Facebook engineers preferring hg to Git

2016-10-27 Thread David Mason
Richard and Warren both make very legitimate comments. I wasn't seriously suggesting that work should stop moving Fossil forward for the perhaps marginal benefit of conversion to Rust. However, the value of Rust is not simply memory management. The *considerably* more expressive type system,

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Facebook engineers preferring hg to Git

2016-10-27 Thread Warren Young
On Oct 27, 2016, at 5:37 AM, David Mason wrote: > > Also of interest is that Facebook is doing an implementation of hg in Rust. Facebook’s market cap is $343.34 billion today. This is relevant because... > Fossil seems pretty robust in C, but Rust would increase safety

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Facebook engineers preferring hg to Git

2016-10-27 Thread Karel Gardas
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:37 PM, David Mason wrote: > I's about 1/3 of the way through this report: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.version-control/nh4fITFlEMk > > It seems that they originally preferred GIT (because it was what they knew) > but now prefer

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Facebook engineers preferring hg to Git

2016-10-27 Thread Richard Hipp
On 10/27/16, David Mason wrote: > Fossil seems pretty robust in C, but Rust would increase safety confidence. Many people do believe that just because an application is written in Rust rather than in C that it must be "safer". But it is a logical fallacy. You should avoid

[fossil-users] OT: Facebook engineers preferring hg to Git

2016-10-27 Thread David Mason
I's about 1/3 of the way through this report: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.version-control/nh4fITFlEMk It seems that they originally preferred GIT (because it was what they knew) but now prefer hg, although it's a bit light on the reasons. The article points out that