Show HN: A udev implementation in Guile Scheme

Discussion (5 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

rahen•41 minutes ago

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.

eisbaw•about 2 hours ago

503. also Why?

farfatched•about 1 hour ago

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".

rwmj•about 2 hours ago

Because both the implementation and DSL of udev are terrible, probably.

voxelghost•about 2 hours ago

503 seems to be for all of codeberg.org

Show HN: A udev implementation in Guile Scheme

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion (5 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews