Re:IPFS 0.5
by karatestomp on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @08:23PM
(#23013818)
Same thing that turned me off. There’d have been lots of cool and useful integrations popping up “for free” all over the place if they’d written it in a good library/integration language. Good language for a daemon, bad language for the reference (so, for anything halfway complicated, usually only) implementation of something intended to become a foundational protocol.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
...there are a lot of cool and useful integrations popping up: https://blog.ipfs.io/weekly-84/.
go-ipfs is where the majority of new development happens right now as the desktop/server implementation (compared to js-ipfs=browser & rust-ipfs=IoT) - but if you want to prove that Rust is clearly better/faster _in general_ - have at it: https://github.com/ipfs-rust/rust-ipfs ;)
I think the thing jbenet was selecting for back in 2013 was concurrency support & modularity, and golang is still a decent choice for that. Rust 1.0 didn't happen until 2015 after the go-ipfs alpha was already out - but agree it's made awesome progress since then!
Re:IPFS 0.5
by karatestomp on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @09:35PM
(#23014308)
I don't care about performance, exactly, it's just that with (say) a C implementation if you're even halfway popular you'll end up with modules in a dozen languages (wrapping your C lib) and an apache module and a storage backend for a few databases, maybe a Linux kernel module, and so on, in no time, and they'll all be pretty much in sync with what's