Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rust v10 Patches Posted Ahead Of Expected Merging With Linux 6.1

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

  • Rust v10 Patches Posted Ahead Of Expected Merging With Linux 6.1

    Phoronix: Rust v10 Patches Posted Ahead Of Expected Merging With Linux 6.1

    Miguel Ojeda who has led the work on the Rust programming language infrastructure support for the Linux kernel today posted the tenth version of these patches. It is these Rust v10 patches that are expected to be mainlined as soon as next week for the Linux 6.1 kernel merge window...

    https://www.phoronix.com/news/Rust-v10-Linux-Patches

  • #2
    See what happens when the programmer is clueless? Instead of complaining about how Rust doesn't have this and that, or how the syntax sucks, they take the language and start building stuff with it. N00bs...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by bug77 View Post
      See what happens when the programmer is clueless? Instead of complaining about how Rust doesn't have this and that, or how the syntax sucks, they take the language and start building stuff with it. N00bs...
      Clueless? I would say he's persistent. If Rust is going to make programmers lifes easier. Let it happen.

      Comment


      • #4
        Begun, the great oxidization has.

        (Oxidation? the above sounds cooler though). So that will effectively require LLVM for a while, right? I don't think GCC's frontend is yet up to the task?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bug77 View Post
          See what happens when the programmer is clueless? Instead of complaining about how Rust doesn't have this and that, or how the syntax sucks, they take the language and start building stuff with it. N00bs...
          "Syntax sucks" and similar are typical excuses from learning something new. Especially when the language is trying to do the same, sometimes safer and with simpler syntax - and you have invested in C89 for last 40 years lol. Also I don't understand why Rust syntax is considered more ugly than C++ for example. Maybe that is said by people who never did a single line in C, C++ and/or Rust in their lives.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
            Begun, the great oxidization has.

            (Oxidation? the above sounds cooler though). So that will effectively require LLVM for a while, right? I don't think GCC's frontend is yet up to the task?
            Nothing will oxidize, the name comes from a fungus. And yes, LLVM is going to be required, because the GCC frontend is not ready.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by V1tol View Post
              "Syntax sucks" and similar are typical excuses from learning something new. Especially when the language is trying to do the same, sometimes safer and with simpler syntax - and you have invested in C89 for last 40 years lol. Also I don't understand why Rust syntax is considered more ugly than C++ for example. Maybe that is said by people who never did a single line in C, C++ and/or Rust in their lives.
              Syntax is mostly meaningless either way, except if it's so bad that it makes desired semantics impossible (not the case for Rust), or if it's ambiguous or otherwise misleading (not the case for Rust either, and ironically, two of the most common complaints against Rust's syntactic deviations from C++ actually are against changes that fix ambiguities).

              Comment


              • #8
                https://bit.ly/3UMPRHt



                If you want to allocate memory, and you don't want to care about what
                context you are in, or whether you are holding spinlocks etc, then you
                damn well shouldn't be doing kernel programming. Not in C, and not in
                Rust.

                It really is that simple. Contexts like this ("I am in a critical
                region, I must not do memory allocation or use sleeping locks") is
                *fundamental* to kernel programming. It has nothing to do with the
                language, and everything to do with the problem space.
                ‚Äč
                the thread is worth reading.

                Michael, there's an issue with long urls
                Last edited by stefansaraev; 27 September 2022, 01:23 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by stefansaraev View Post
                  the thread is worth reading.
                  There are also other Linus arguments about 'safety' etc. However, I'd rather wait and see if they iron everything out in the current patch set.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by V1tol View Post
                    "Syntax sucks" and similar are typical excuses from learning something new. Especially when the language is trying to do the same, sometimes safer and with simpler syntax - and you have invested in C89 for last 40 years lol. Also I don't understand why Rust syntax is considered more ugly than C++ for example. Maybe that is said by people who never did a single line in C, C++ and/or Rust in their lives.
                    It's usually the types that have only ever seen C/C++ but are firmly convinced that they know everything there is to know about programming.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X