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

[Quackdoc]

I would like to see this merged, it would lower the bar for entry into kernel hacking a decent chunk. recently mesa is has something using rust, so thats a win too, it will be slow, but we shall see rust get more and more popular

[rogerx]

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

Good one.

I'm not going to say anything, as a lot of (CPU) developers are probably going to laugh or say "Doh!" at that comment!

... not even going to state where you went wrong with that one ... ;-)

[CommunityMember]

Who said this is ever getting merged?

Rust support will eventually get merged (if not this patch version, the next, or the next), because the advantages far outweigh the FUD that some resort to offering.

That does not mean rust will suddenly take over all of the linux kernel (it won't), but there is no provable downside to offering it as an alternative where it is a proper fit.

[CommunityMember]

Don't feed the troll

Starve a troll, feed a kernel developer?

[smitty3268]

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

Why bother? It's much more fun to just laugh at you.

Anyone genuinely interested in what Rust is can easily look that up themselves.

[brad0]

Genius ^^

That's like Beavis calling Butthead a genius.

[brad0]

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

Still not good enough.

[brad0]

I would like to see this merged, it would lower the bar for entry into kernel hacking a decent chunk. recently mesa is has something using rust, so thats a win too, it will be slow, but we shall see rust get more and more popular

It wouldn't do any such thing in the slightest.

[Almindor]

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 just proved that you have no idea what Rust, or even "manual memory management" is about. Congrats!

[Quackdoc]

It wouldn't do any such thing in the slightest.

I don't know your extent of skills in rust and C, but whatever they are, you and me have come to some very different conclusions. from my experience, It is far easier to write safe and good rust code, than it is to write safe and good C code.