Show HN: A udev implementation in Guile Scheme

(codeberg.org)

16 points | by mbakke 4 days ago ago

7 comments

  • rahen 4 hours ago 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.

    • nemoniac 9 minutes ago ago

      Not only that, under rule changes in progress it would not be allowed in Guix, which it would appear to be well suited for.

  • eisbaw 5 hours ago ago

    503. also Why?

    • farfatched 4 hours ago 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 5 hours ago ago

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

    • voxelghost 5 hours ago ago

      503 seems to be for all of codeberg.org

      • xedrac an hour ago ago

        Codeberg infrastructure needs work...