Intro
As you may have heard or seen, there is a bit of controversy around Ubuntu adopting a rewritten version of GNU Core Utils in Rust. This has sparked a lot of debate in the tech community. This decision by Canonical got me thinking about this whole trend or push of rewriting existing software in Rust which seems to be happening a lot lately.
To put it bluntly I was confused by the need to replace GNU Core Utils with a new implementation as GNU Core Utils has been around since arguably the 90s and more realistically 2000s and it has been battle tested and proven to be reliable, efficient, effective and most importantly secure as it had basically never had any major security vulnerabilities in its entire existence. So why then would we deem it necessary to replace it with a new implementation in Rust? Why would anyone go through the trouble of rewriting something that already works perfectly fine and has been doing so for decades? When the end result at best is going to be a tool that does the same thing as the original and in the very best case scenario offer the same performance?
What bothers me even more is the bigger pattern this points to. Are we as developers more interested in chasing new languages and frameworks than actually solving real problems? I strongly subscribe to the idea that software development 60% problem solving and 40% creative exploration and innovation. But lately it feels like the balance is shifting more and more towards the latter. We seem to be more interested in trying out the latest and greatest languages and frameworks than actually solving real problems.
The Hype of New Languages and Shiny Object Syndrome
We've all been there in the past haven't we? Getting excited about a new programming language or framework that promises to solve all our problems and make our lives easier. It's easy to get caught up in the hype and want to try out the latest and greatest technology, but it's important to remember that just because something is new doesn't mean it's better. We need to be careful not to fall into the trap of "shiny object syndrome" where we chase after the latest trends without considering whether they actually solve our problems or improve our workflows. It's important to evaluate new technologies based on their merits and how they fit into our existing systems and workflows, rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because everyone else is doing it.
Now for the important question:
Do I think the developers of coreutils-rs are doing this just because Rust is the new hotness?
Short and simple: No, no I do not. I believe they have good intentions and are likely trying to improve upon the existing implementation in some way. However, I do not agree with them that there is a need for a rewritten version of GNU Core Utils in Rust. I also do not agree that GNU Core Utils is inherently insecure or unsafe.
Why do we get Exited About New Languages?
It's also important to briefly touch upon the psychological aspect of why we get excited about new languages. New languages often come with new features, syntax, and paradigms that can be appealing to developers. They may also promise to solve problems that existing languages struggle with, such as performance, concurrency, or memory safety. Additionally, new languages can offer a fresh perspective on programming and can inspire creativity and innovation. Not to mention the community aspect, new usually means a changing of the guard, new people, new ideas, new ways of thinking about problems. All of these factors can contribute to the excitement and enthusiasm that developers feel when a new language is introduced.
This enthusiasm can sometimes lead to an almost zealous approach of wanting everything and anything to be written only in the new language by this new and fresh community of developers. This can lead to a situation where existing and well-established software is rewritten in the new language, even if there is no real need for it. This can be seen as a form of "language evangelism" where developers are trying to promote their favorite language by rewriting existing software in it.
The Case of GNU Core Utils
As I've briefly touched upon earlier, GNU Core Utils is a collection of basic file, shell and text manipulation utilities that are fundamental to the operation of Unix-like operating systems. These utilities include commands like ls, cp, mv, rm, cat, echo, and many others. They are essential for performing everyday tasks in the command line interface (CLI) and are used by system administrators, developers, and users alike.
Some of these can run hundreds of times per second, so performance is absolutely crucial. Even a small reduction in performance to a utility that is run by some OS critical daemon can have a significant impact on the overall performance of the system. GNU core utils has been optimized for this for about 30+ years at this point and is it really worth just tossing all of those lessons and optimizations out the window just to rewrite it in a new language?
I've also briefly touched upon that at best in the absolute best case scenario a rewritten version of GNU Core Utils in Rust would be able to match the performance of the original implementation. As we know GNU Core Utils are mostly written in C and some C++ mixed in sparingly. So far benchmarks have shown time and time again that at best with a lot of optimizations and tweaks Rust can only ever match the performance of C and in most cases it is actually slower. So the best case outcome of this rewrite is that we get a tool that does the same thing as the original and at best offers the same performance. So what is the actual benefit of this rewrite?
Where is the value, what is the actual problem that is being solved here?
When Hype Overshadows Real Problems
This is the crux of the issue, it's very very easy to get swept up in the excitement of a new language and want to use it for everything and anything under the sun. As developers we love novelty and communities with enthusiasm and fresh ideas. It's stimulating it's fun it feels like progress it feels like we are finally building something again instead of just rehashing and maintaining. We all know from personal experience that creating a new project is more fun and enjoyable than maintaining and existing one and this is a natural human tendency.
Now do I think this is one of the reasons the developers of coreutils-rs are doing this?
Yes, I do.
But in the end they are solving a problem that does not exist.
It's not just about Core Utils
Now with how often I've mentioned this specific example of GNU Core Utils you might think I want to single them out or have some sort of grudge or specific issue with this particular project. No, not really... I think this project is indicative of the larger issue we face in the tech community. It's very easy to get caught up in the excitement of new languages and frameworks and want to use them for everything and anything. This can lead to a situation where we are rewriting existing software in new languages without considering whether it actually solves any real problems or improves our workflows.
Problem Solving Should Be Our North Star
At the end of the day, software development is about solving real problems, not about chasing novelty, shiny new languages, or personal curiosity. Every line of code we write, every framework we adopt, every library we integrate should be justified by the problems it helps solve, not by the hype around it.
Yet increasingly, it feels like the industry is losing sight of this. We celebrate engineers for building in the “new hot language,” for rewriting tools, or for adopting the latest framework, even when the original solution worked perfectly fine. We reward novelty over necessity, excitement over impact.
This is not a phenomenon isolated to just core utils or systems programming, it happens in web development, mobile development, data science, and pretty much every other area of software development. We too often abandon tried and true solutions and ideas of new and exciting shiny ones without considering whether they actually solve any real problems or improve our workflows.
For example web development went full circle with React Server Components where we went from separation of concerns straight back to PHP style mixing of HTML and logic, server rendering and delivering interactive components to the client. Or the whole GraphQL craze where traditional REST APIs were abandoned en masse for a new and exciting way of doing things that promised to solve the dreaded problem of "over-fetching" and "under-fetching" of data. Yet in reality, it introduced a whole new set of problems and complexities that were not present in traditional REST APIs.
Or perhaps the whole microservices and microfrontend craze where a lot of projects were abandoned or rewritten to be split into smaller and smaller pieces,
Was it all bad? Should we always just stick to what works and only ever maintain legacy projects and systems? Heck no!
There is definitely a place for innovation and new ideas in software development. New languages, frameworks, and tools can bring fresh perspectives and approaches to problem-solving. However, it's important to evaluate these new technologies based on their merits and how they fit into our existing systems and workflows, rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because everyone else is doing it.
We need to be more critical and thoughtful about the technologies we adopt and the projects we undertake. We need to ask ourselves whether a new language or framework actually solves a real problem or improves our workflows, or if we're just chasing novelty for its own sake.
A Final Thought
At the end of the day, it’s not about Rust, React, GraphQL, or the latest microservices fad. It’s about solving real problems. Every line of code, every framework, every rewrite should have a purpose beyond curiosity or hype.
We live in a culture that rewards novelty, celebrates “cool” tech, and often mistakes excitement for progress. But progress isn’t measured in how many new languages you touch, or how many shiny rewrites you ship, it’s measured in impact, in the problems you actually solve for users, teams, and systems.
So next time you feel the pull of the newest hot language, framework, or tool, pause. Ask yourself: “Am I solving a real problem here, or just chasing excitement?”
Because at the end of the day, engineering isn’t about what’s trendy, it’s about what works, what matters, and what actually makes a difference. And that, my friends, is the craft we should all be sharpening.
Top comments (0)