Rust Infrastructure Pull Request Submitted For Linux 6.1!

[marios]

I am not arguing with trolls who don't actually code themselves, but only have "theoretical pointless discussions" around programming languages...

Everybody doing it for a living will tell you that it's a no brainer to have proper tooling around a language, which includes a good and competent compiler and a competent standard library. We don't want to have to think for 5 hours which of the 100 implementations I have to use to get peak performance. We want to use the language. And e.g. Rusts _huge_ benefit is, that it actually made the package managing part of the language and that third party libs which make sense, get pulled into the stdlib after a controlled process.

Having a standard would make all of that much harder and would actually sabotage it.

If you don't believe me, ask other full time programmers, they'll probably tell you something similar.

Seeing that you have written some C, I was hoping that you are not like the rustafarians I hate. I was wrong. Your insults are the same (YoU DoN'T CoDe1!1!1!).

Well having a good compiler is important in order to use a language. Having 100 good compilers is way better. And in order to have more than 1 compiler, you need an agreement that says "if the code follows these rules, it should compiler and behave like that". This is a standard. For rust the de facto "standard" is the output of rustc... What you are saying about wasting 5 hours choosing among 100 implementations sounds like what a windows fanboy would say against Linux distros (yes I can insult as well, I know you are not a windows fanboy but you are using similar arguments). And it isnt't even true. For example the vast majority of people use glibc as a libc implementation without thinking about alternatives. In any case, my point was that the standard libraries should not be considered part of the language but something complementary to that. And guess what, the discussion about stdlibs is irrelevant to kernel coding, since they are not available.

[marios]

I think he has some secret plan to make Rust available outside LLVM world, LTO too I hope too. Just sayin'.

LoL, LTO works with gcc. But not for compiling Linux. And none is talking about it since llvm LTO got merged.

[karolherbst]

Seeing that you have written some C, I was hoping that you are not like the rustafarians I hate. I was wrong. Your insults are the same (YoU DoN'T CoDe1!1!1!).

Well having a good compiler is important in order to use a language. Having 100 good compilers is way better. And in order to have more than 1 compiler, you need an agreement that says "if the code follows these rules, it should compiler and behave like that". This is a standard. For rust the de facto "standard" is the output of rustc... What you are saying about wasting 5 hours choosing among 100 implementations sounds like what a windows fanboy would say against Linux distros (yes I can insult as well, I know you are not a windows fanboy but you are using similar arguments). And it isnt't even true. For example the vast majority of people use glibc as a libc implementation without thinking about alternatives. In any case, my point was that the standard libraries should not be considered part of the language but something complementary to that. And guess what, the discussion about stdlibs is irrelevant to kernel coding, since they are not available.

my point was, that if I choose to use a programming language, I want to get shit done and not have to think about how to create and modify basic things like strings... And if a programming language doesn't give me that out of the box, then yes, I call this programming language a terrible one which nobody shall ever use.

[karolherbst]

Indeed and this isn't even something specific to Rust (full time Scala/Java programmer which also have strong package management + cross OS support).

Also having standard for a language is largely a gimmick unless that standard provides something useful to the table (i.e. a formally verified specification which can guarantee certain properties). C has no such thing, and the main reason a standard in C exists in the first place is due to historical reasons (back then proprietary compilers were a thing where as now its kind of stupid, even having multiple OS implementations of a language is typically rare). I guess you can argue that C's role today is largely delegated to being a high level assembler, but LLVM is doing a better job of that and again, there isn't a LLVM standard either.

right, and the C situation lead to everybody implementing linked list primitives or random other stuff, because there is not this one core lib everybody likes to use. Glib does contain quite a lot, but then you might not want to pull in glib as a dependency out of political or pragmatical reasons.

Rust is actually doing a lot of the things right a lot of the other "low level system programming languages" failed to address for a long time. And then if you want to address this, you get those people saying "but the language should only define the language, because ....." whatever they come up with this time.

There is way too less pragmatic thinking and too much a focus on the "perfect technical way", which is pointless if reality disagrees.

[karolherbst]

Nouveau. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Weasel knows that already. He frequently gets into these types of arguments and always insists anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. I don't think it matters what kind of experience the other person involved has.

I don't think people are idiots, just that often people focus way too much on what's "technically" the best solution, where it's obvious from the start that it's some totally irrelevant and pointless argument to begin with.

For all I care, people can argue about "languages shouldn't contain stdlibs", but if they expect others to actually listen to them and to follow their "advise" and if that would actually make my (and all others) work harder, we got a problem.

[smitty3268]

...

Just to be clear, I was referring to Weasel in my post. Not you.

[karolherbst]

Just to be clear, I was referring to Weasel in my post. Not you.

ohhh... Though I also have to learn to be less confrontational on such topics... I think...

[abu_shawarib]

C is considered fast because its bias towards base+offset addressing was well suited for the PDP11.

As opposed to what type of addressing? All modern architectures use base+offset addressing.

[Weasel]

Lol, you are answering the developer of rusticl, the OpenCL implemented in rust

Well that explains a lot doesn't it? Wouldn't expect any logic out of it.

[Weasel]

literally nobody wanting to get shit done cares about any of that... you can live in your perfect world where everything is perfect, but that doesn't change the fact, that reality is completely different.

If you know how it's have to be done, then proof the world you are right (spoiler: you won't).

troll somewhere else

Hold on so I literally make a point about quality of software and now you're back to "wanting to get shit done" aka outsourced garbage that runs like shit? So thanks for proving my point I guess? My JS example fits even more now. You call it troll, I call it just a mirror that you hate seeing yourself in because you know it's true.

The thing is, and you're just like them, a lot of people hate it, and I don't mean just programmers, or people who want quality code, but even users. They're sick of it and you're oblivious to it, this is why the software ecosystem is such utter crap nowadays. Having 100 different spins of the same type of app is not a "good thing", THEY ALL SUCK.

But I mean it makes even more sense now: notice pattern of Rust programmers to rewrite stuff that's already working good? I mean that's what "getting shit done" means in their eyes just like JS "devs": NIH and re-implementing the same shit with even more bloat, using a million frameworks for the simplest of things, because that's all they know how to code. Instead of seeking perfection in one software that has one purpose let's rewrite it so now we have 100 turds instead of one singular app that has no redundant bullshit. But hey you "got shit done" congrats.

Next time don't even dare to argue against people who talk about software quality if your argument is the typical "getting shit done". It's just an insult to anyone who knows what software quality is. Just like it's an insult to claim Python is much better than C in terms of software quality because "it gets shit done a lot faster". Well if what you wrote was true quality you wouldn't need to "get it done" 100 different times, just once.