News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Show HN: A udev implementation in Guile Scheme by eisbaw on Friday July 31, 2026 @05:25AM (#49120868)
503. also Why?
Re:Show HN: A udev implementation in Guile Scheme by farfatched on Friday July 31, 2026 @06:49AM (#49121507)
The README:

> Nothing is wrong with udev. In fact udev is great, as should be obvious from its 20+ years of service on nearly every GNU/Linux system out there. The rule format it pioneered has stood the test of time and can almost be considered a "standard". > > However, udev is not easily usable on systems without systemd and Linux. This project, like eudev and others, aims to address that. Unlike eudev however, this is a completely independent implementation instead of a "fork".

Re:Show HN: A udev implementation in Guile Scheme by rwmj on Friday July 31, 2026 @05:34AM (#49120939)
Because both the implementation and DSL of udev are terrible, probably.
Re:Show HN: A udev implementation in Guile Scheme by voxelghost on Friday July 31, 2026 @05:42AM (#49121010)
503 seems to be for all of codeberg.org
Re:Show HN: A udev implementation in Guile Scheme by xedrac on Friday July 31, 2026 @09:48AM (#49123115)
Codeberg infrastructure needs work...
Re:Show HN: A udev implementation in Guile Scheme by rahen on Friday July 31, 2026 @06:55AM (#49121557)
I was initially surprised because this is not a good use case for Scheme. The current C implementation is clean and efficient, and I'd rather use Scheme to replace some messy Python code with its dependency hell.

And then I saw this: "As mentioned above, some code has been automatically translated from C to Scheme, using generative AI. This is not creative work, and as such, the authors of Goodev cannot claim copyright for it."

Somehow I wish those tokens would had been more usefully spent on porting code where a sound language could actually make a difference.

Re:Show HN: A udev implementation in Guile Scheme by nemoniac on Friday July 31, 2026 @10:26AM (#49123591)
Not only that, under rule changes in progress it would not be allowed in Guix, which it would appear to be well suited for.