Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rust For Linux Kernel Patches Revised With Upgraded Rust Toolchain, Build Improvements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rust For Linux Kernel Patches Revised With Upgraded Rust Toolchain, Build Improvements

    Phoronix: Rust For Linux Kernel Patches Revised With Upgraded Rust Toolchain, Build Improvements

    Miguel Ojeda has published his third iteration of the patches implementing the basic infrastructure for supporting the Rust programming language within the Linux kernel...

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...t-For-Linux-v3

  • #2
    Looking forward to this. Rust currently is the best in class programming language, although Zig seems interessting aswell. The borrow checker is such a game changer. Since I started developing in Rust, I rarely have to use a debugger or google weird compiler messages and it helps writing better cpp code too.

    Comment


    • #3
      Languages like Rust and Python are unstable moving targets that will never be suitable for critical platforms or programs.

      I mean seriously, just reading this article with the Rust developer calmly explaining that it was "simply" a matter of Rust being unstable, but this one part would be stable soon, made my head spin so hard I lost touch with reality for a few milliseconds.

      My goodness, these fly-by-night languages don't even pretend to care about stability or backwards compatibility. They just come out with a version, realize there could be improvements, then chuck that version out the window and create a new, completely incompatible, one.

      That's the opposite of progress.

      It's chaos.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by muncrief View Post
        Languages like Rust and Python are unstable moving targets that will never be suitable for critical platforms or programs.

        I mean seriously, just reading this article with the Rust developer calmly explaining that it was "simply" a matter of Rust being unstable, but this one part would be stable soon, made my head spin so hard I lost touch with reality for a few milliseconds.

        My goodness, these fly-by-night languages don't even pretend to care about stability or backwards compatibility. They just come out with a version, realize there could be improvements, then chuck that version out the window and create a new, completely incompatible, one.

        That's the opposite of progress.

        It's chaos.
        Ever head of "incubating features"? Apparently not.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by muncrief View Post
          Languages like Rust and Python are unstable moving targets that will never be suitable for critical platforms or programs.
          Some ministries of the Dutch government are using Python, even the Ministry of Justice and Security. Or is a government not “critical” enough for you?

          Comment


          • #6
            Python and Rust are both quite new languages, relatively speaking, and hence developing quite rapidly. New features are being pumped into C++ all the time, and still it's considered stable.

            So what exatly makes a language unstable?

            Has Rust even declared itself stable yet?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

              Some ministries of the Dutch government are using Python, even the Ministry of Justice and Security. Or is a government not “critical” enough for you?
              You really mean that qualification for a computer language is by government usage?
              Paper pushers + lowest bidder contractor = qualification?

              The most horrific part is that you're not entirely wrong...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by muncrief View Post
                I mean seriously, just reading this article with the Rust developer calmly explaining that it was "simply" a matter of Rust being unstable, but this one part would be stable soon, made my head spin so hard I lost touch with reality for a few milliseconds.

                My goodness, these fly-by-night languages don't even pretend to care about stability or backwards compatibility. They just come out with a version, realize there could be improvements, then chuck that version out the window and create a new, completely incompatible, one.
                Unlike glorious C that spontaneously sprang into existence one day in 1972 fully featured, and has never been revised or updated since.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by direc85 View Post
                  Python and Rust are both quite new languages, relatively speaking, and hence developing quite rapidly. New features are being pumped into C++ all the time, and still it's considered stable.

                  So what exatly makes a language unstable?

                  Has Rust even declared itself stable yet?
                  Python has been around since 1991 is 30 years long enough for you?

                  It's older than java, C#, rust, C++ was only standardized in 1998 (though ofc you have versions of C++ going back 10 years before python existed)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by muncrief View Post
                    Languages like Rust and Python are unstable moving targets that will never be suitable for critical platforms or programs.

                    I mean seriously, just reading this article with the Rust developer calmly explaining that it was "simply" a matter of Rust being unstable, but this one part would be stable soon, made my head spin so hard I lost touch with reality for a few milliseconds.

                    My goodness, these fly-by-night languages don't even pretend to care about stability or backwards compatibility. They just come out with a version, realize there could be improvements, then chuck that version out the window and create a new, completely incompatible, one.

                    That's the opposite of progress.

                    It's chaos.
                    It's the opposite really. Rust has as the only language I know a sane plan for the future. Every new Rust edition can bring new features to the language because old editions are guranteed to be compatible with new editions -> meaning you can for example use libraries from old editions in new editions and vice versa in up to date compilers. Is it better to be stuck with bad design choices for the matter to be stable ? I think not. Also the unstable Rust is a graceful way to introduce new features and test them. It is only natural that new features are needed for this Linux implementation, Rust has not been in use for comparable projects to this date (maybe redox). But this is in my opinion more a chance to improve Rust in the long run. Also in Rust linguo unstable can mean pretty much anything as it is very common in the ecosystem to wait very long before releasing a 1.0 version. (which kinda contradicts you aswell)

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X