Rust-Written Redox OS Now Supports GDB Debugging

[wswartzendruber]

Fixed that. Their OS is also insecure by design.

Insulting their developers doesn't make my system at work more stable. What do you propose they do about that?

[pmorph]

You can try the official "Rust by Example" tutorial
https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/rust-by-example/

Thanks, will try.

[Volta]

Looks like we are dealing with 2 issues here:
1)fans of penguine do not tolerate anything that could turn into competition
2)for certain set of people performance is more important than safety. That they go bash Intel CPU's in the next thread is hypocrisy, is lost to them.

Looks like we have a problem with bsdead fanboys here. The first one is delusional, because redox is just a toy OS (to forestall stupid argument: 30 years ago operating systems were incomparably less advanced and hardware was very limited, so it was easier to create system like Linux and became successful). The second one is delusional as well. Do you claim rust will magically fix intel CPUs vulnerabilities?

[aht0]

Fixed that. Their OS is also insecure by design.

Fanboy detected. Tell me when your 'secure OS' starts using signed drivers.. random 3rd party repos ain't it

[Volta]

This is a big deal, Microsoft did an internal survey and figured out that 70% of their security issues are due to their crap programming skills in C/C++

Fixed that. Their OS is also insecure by design.

[Stupido]

Jesus Christ!!
I stopped reading the discussion somewhere at page 4 or 5...

It seems we have new holly war going on?!?!

People! you all have right from your own point of view, and yet none of you have the complete picture, just because you are so entrenched in your own point-of-view...

luckily the world is big and colorful enough, so there is living space for C/C++, Java, Rust, Go, Basic, C#, JavaScript, WASM, HTML (:-P)...

Once upon a time, I saw a quote that become my signature and explains the world in one sentence: "On the eighth day, God started to debug..."

Peace...

[aht0]

Looks like we are dealing with 2 issues here:
1)fans of penguine do not tolerate anything that could turn into competition
2)for certain set of people performance is more important than safety. That they go bash Intel CPU's in the next thread is hypocrisy, is lost to them.

[smitty3268]

Nothing new here. Absolutely every topic mentioning rust is flooded with rust marketing monkeys pushing it with insane zeal. They just unable to realize how it causes natural reaction of disfavor and antipathy. Hope they get paid for this and will show even more convincing results in future.

I'd suggest going back to the first page of comments and re-reading.

There are a handful of innocuous comments made asking why this is useful, others explaining why it might be, etc. And then the inflammatory post that kicked off this long thread was posted by gnulinux82 on post #6. I suspect he would not consider himself a "rust marketing monkey".

Both sides of this "argument' were frankly really dumb, and should have just ignored each other, but it's odd to blame the person responding to inflammatory comments more than the original commenter, especially when said comments are being made on a thread about a prominent Rust project. It's like someone from Gnome showing up on a KDE thread or vice versa, throwing out some flamewar statements, and then blaming the fans of that desktop for responding back.

If this was a thread about some C library and someone posted that they should port it to Rust then the same would be true there as well, and all the people that would inevitably respond about why Rust sucks would have some level of justification.

[goTouch]

I have no doubt Rust is capable to replace C/C++. An over simplified way to look at it is, put boundary checking and pointer ownership checking in C/C++ and you get Rust. So performance number could vary a little bit but it is not that significant and also depends on optimization. In some cases small things like using string with explicit length could improve performance a lot in C/C++.

I just wish it keeps a C compiler and can use Linux driver source code as is, so that enough people can get a chance to at least boot it.
Any OS without enough drivers is not going to fly. GUI stack is another bigger issue as amount of code in GUI is actually much larger than kernel.

[Brane215]

There is a reason C and C++ has survived every killer new language for so many decades and believe or not C/C++ is really really lean and that is because every language that have tried to kill C/C++ end becoming C/C++ and at that point is meaningless and for that same reason many features are double edge swords, specially for developers that learned programming but not the hardware.

Why? because the hardware itself is not safe nor provide any guarantee and it assumes(wildly in some architectures) that you understand what is supposed to do properly, hence C and then C++ were created to be extremely granular to be able to adapt to almost if not every situation the hardware can throw at you and all this features that people fear so much are really needed.

The problem is, granularity is error prone if you don't understand the hardware and this is where C/C++ gained its fame.

C/C++ are not languages for the faint of heart but due to its fame for performance many devs jumped in without proper understand of it, just to end in a loop of fixes and errors because if something is logic for the software may not be for the hardware.

If Rust wanna kill C/C++ completely it will have to allow you drop security, type safety, give you control flow over LLVM(or any other backend) code generation, etc. and at that point every possible mistake with C/C++ will be possible with Rust.

What Rust should do is go for replacing certain aspect of C++ and aim to become a general application language because honestly C/C++ is way too low level for most of the things a normal desktop application should do.

So, leave C/C++ for the real close to metal code that really need to be that low and Rust from there with all its safety nets active and you can have the best of both worlds.

I don't think so. Yes, many of security mechanisms in Rust are not exactly free, but:
- for most code, they can come close
- if you don't like them, you can switch them off

Even looking at kernel sources, it is not that low-level everywhere. Most sources are quite ordinary.
Then there are special header declarations ( alignment etc stuff) etc.

This can be done in Rust AFAICT easily, with Rust taking care of more than 80-90% of the sources with its default protections.

I like mostly about Rust is that it's C/C++ _rethink_ . It has been implemented not as some academic project but actively in the field with language implementers getting real-time feedback from various project re/done in Rust. Redox is great, if for nothing else, just that reason.

Every change in Rust is made after getting confirmation "from the ground" and language at this stage doesn't have to wait for standardisation body etc.

To me, its learning curve looks infinitely lower than for friggin C++. C++ has too many abstractions that require from code writer to be on the same "mental wavelength" as langauge implementer. And much of that was just untested hype and wet dreams that were standardised and then proven faulty or with too much baggage.

Barring Nazi borrow-checker, Rust is free of most of that. At least I can't find any big deal. WRT to borrow checker, this is one pain point, but it's neccessary. Alternative is chasing stupd bugs in C or going through insane iterative C++ language increments for partial result. This sort of errors one has to get under control. It's either WC or chasing/linting them manually, which is not foolproof.