Rust For The Linux Kernel Sent Out For Review A Fourth Time

[jacob]

OS kernels are a low level endeavor. C is an extremely mature and successful low level language.

C++ was an attempt to bolt high level features onto a low level language, and decades later they are still trying to get it right.
Rust is an attempt to bolt low level features onto a high level language, and it has never been successful, nor will it be.
Both are an attempt to make programming "easier" for people that cannot handle true low level programming.

The reason we have not seen a better low-level language than C yet is nobody is making new low level languages. I'm sure somebody could make an improved C just by modifying some of the more obvious shortcomings, but every single attempt has been to bolt a helicopter onto a Yugo, and they all failed.

C is very mature but definitely not successful, at least not in terms of the quality of the software it has produced. It has been successful in terms of adoption because as you rightly say, for decades there was basically nothing else, so it was used by default. Now there is Rust which aims to address that point. It's not a high level language and it doesn't have "bolted on" features, although it's arguably highER level than C. It's also not meant to make programming easier for people who "cannot handle" something - if anything, Rust programming is a lot more *difficult* than C programming. It's meant to be that way, the whole point is to be able to statically prove that the code is safe from many of the problems that have plagued C code for ever.

[jacob]

You must be some "new school" programmer who lacks accomplishments but thinks he has it all figured out.

C is excellent for an OS kernel because memory management is 100% up to the developer. You decide your own allocation strategy, you decide when and how to initialize memory, your own re-use strategy, and you decide when to free memory. There are no features that must be abstained from when doing low-level things, there is no "unsafe" portion of the language that one must rely exclusively on in these low-level scenarios. No "garbage collection", which is a "for dummies" feature for people who cannot keep track of allocations. But Rust doesn't use "garbage collection", it uses "unicorn farts that nobody can quite describe" but don't call it garbage collection, because garbage collection has a negative connotation. Rust is a win for it's own marketing folks, and nothing else.

You are a total ignorant who knows nothing about Rust and apparently not much more about C either. Memory management in Rust is exactly the same as in C: entirely manual and up to the developer. The difference is that when you think you know what you are doing, C simply takes your word for it while Rust will tell you to prove it or GTFO. There is no garbage collection in Rust, what Rust has is a perfectly well understood model, which is documented ad proven (both formally and in practice). Just because you are a dummy who doesn't understand the description and sees unicorn farts instead doesn't change that.

By the way garbage collection is not for dummies, for many classes of problems it's the superior and more correct approach. Of course dumb r34l pr0gr4mM3rz think the point of software development is not to produce something performant, secure, maintainable, user friendly and cost effective, they think the goal is to show their fellow dummies how l33t they are by writing crappy code in the wrong language for the problem space.

[rogerx]

I'm not a fan of rust, whether iron oxide based or language.

Look at rust's history of support.

Litterly took a crap on older CPU's lacking SSE2 CPU optimization while supporters kept the bugs or lack of support extremely quiet, all awhile furthering it's own agenda in-filtering top coding projects in order to enrich it's own fame. Reminds me of Ubuntu and SystemF.

On the flip, rust will likely have a very successful time of further deleting all of the older (and slower) CPU code from the kernel, making the kernel smaller and faster!

[smitty3268]

You must be some "new school" programmer who lacks accomplishments but thinks he has it all figured out.

LOL. No and no.

C is excellent for an OS kernel because memory management is 100% up to the developer. You decide your own allocation strategy, you decide when and how to initialize memory, your own re-use strategy, and you decide when to free memory.

Yeah... Exactly like Rust.... It's pretty clear from just this sentence that you actually have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm not even claiming Rust is good or good for the kernel, but what you're saying is just laughably wrong.

[darkonix]

.

Litterly took a crap on older CPU's lacking SSE2 CPU optimization while supporters kept the bugs or lack of support extremely quiet, all awhile furthering it's own agenda in-filtering top coding projects in order to enrich it's own fame. Reminds me of Ubuntu and SystemF.

If you read the patches they have very detailed notes on what doesn't work, bug numbers and pending features proposed for upstream Rust.

[betty567]

C is very mature but definitely not successful, at least not in terms of the quality of the software it has produced. It has been successful in terms of adoption because as you rightly say, for decades there was basically nothing else, so it was used by default. Now there is Rust which aims to address that point. It's not a high level language and it doesn't have "bolted on" features, although it's arguably highER level than C. It's also not meant to make programming easier for people who "cannot handle" something - if anything, Rust programming is a lot more *difficult* than C programming. It's meant to be that way, the whole point is to be able to statically prove that the code is safe from many of the problems that have plagued C code for ever.

C is not successful? The entire world runs on C code, and seems to work just fine. But sure, all of the Rust so code is sooooo high quality, and the world will be revolutionized as soon as the last bit of C code is re-written in Rust. Some naive programmers are going to be very disappointed when this never happens, and Rust, aka "the flavor of the week" fizzles out after an uneventful lifetime, just like Ruby did.

[betty567]

LOL. No and no.


Yeah... Exactly like Rust.... It's pretty clear from just this sentence that you actually have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm not even claiming Rust is good or good for the kernel, but what you're saying is just laughably wrong.

Then why don't you explain it all to us, Smitty?

[rogerx]

If you read the patches they have very detailed notes on what doesn't work, bug numbers and pending features proposed for upstream Rust.

... only two to three years after the fact, of the initial drop of SSE support.

And still only those that are aware of this lacking, are mostly those that code, compile, and/or debug, as many non-coders are still popping-up on bug lists, wondering why their Firefox or Seamonkey browser, or other core system utility will not run on their CPU of choice.

Kind of like robbing a bank, then admitting to it afterwards, implying they're not guilty of theft. Or how about buying my car and subsequently finding something is hideously wrong with the vehicle engine, and I state well I disclosed it within the fine print.

People get suckered into pulling dependencies, such as rust, so readily.

[jacob]

C is not successful? The entire world runs on C code, and seems to work just fine. But sure, all of the Rust so code is sooooo high quality, and the world will be revolutionized as soon as the last bit of C code is re-written in Rust. Some naive programmers are going to be very disappointed when this never happens, and Rust, aka "the flavor of the week" fizzles out after an uneventful lifetime, just like Ruby did.

The entire world runs on C code with never ending buffer overflows, data races, memory leaks, use after free errors, dangling pointers, subtle portability issues and other crashes (when not outright security vulnerabilities). When was the last time you saw a segfault? If your answer is not "today" then I don't believe you. As for Rust, don't worry about its future, it will be just fine. No one is going to rewrite the last bit of C code in Rust and plenty of new C code will be written too, but when the developers of various C/C++ projects express interest in Rust, there is probably a reason. I'm talking about Linux, Chrome, Rsvg, curl, GNOME and more. The operative word here is interest: it's the developers of those projects who decide to look at Rust to see if it could benefit them, it's not some sort of conspiracy by the Illuminati to brainwash those devs to start using Rust against their better judgement.

[jacob]

wondering why their Firefox or Seamonkey browser, or other core system utility will not run on their CPU of choice.

Oh my God, some software won't run on a CPU it doesn't support, what a scandal.