Linux Kernel's Preliminary Rust Code Seeing 64-bit POWER Support

[CommunityMember]

The reason why it is not yet finished is as stated in the README.md that rust was for a long time so often changed that it made no sense to even try.

If one goes back to the full history (not the revised one) there were also reasons about the bootstrap requirements that were self-imposed by the gcc project that inhibited some of the earlier efforts. Their project, their processes, and in the end what will matter is that the gcc project will have rust as part of their offering.

[miquels]

Then you just aren't good in C.

It is for sure nice to have a low level language that is also easily safely writable by someone who just isn't good in programming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

[bug77]

So was Go, the last hype language. And here we are now in the post Go world.

You and who else?

https://github.com/docker?q=docker&type=&language=&sort=

https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes

[edwaleni]

The project name for the new version of Ubuntu written in Rust will be "Insolent Insimbi".

[bug77]

Are you really convinced the llvm-based rust compiler is infallible? I'd welcome a second implementation based in gcc, just to be able to cross-check them.

Infallibility comes from the rust compiler feeding safe IR into LLVM. You could validate that by implementing gcc support, but it's much easier to just validate the LLVM IR.

Mind you, I'm not against gcc support for Rust. I just don't think it should be high priority atm.

[torsionbar28]

Just enable the WD40 task scheduler to prevent Rust issues

Or upgrade from Rust to Solid State programming language.

[dragonn]

Then you just aren't good in C.

Maybe, but looking at most bugs from big professional project like Linux/OpenSSL most of them a some kind of memory overflows/memory race. And of course you can those bugs still get with rust but that is much harder.

But it is not a good thing if that language only properly support like 2 architectures and can only be compiled via the worst currently popular compiler tool chain.

As far I can count with that topic it is already 3, you know that is just the start? At the current moment is more an experiment then something that is already proposed to be in the kernel but I vote will all my fingers for it.
Why is LLVM "the worst currently popular compiler tool chain"?

[reba]

Then you just aren't good in C.

It is for sure nice to have a low level language that is also easily safely writable by someone who just isn't good in programming. But it is not a good thing if that language only properly support like 2 architectures and can only be compiled via the worst currently popular compiler tool chain.

So you're saying Reinhold Messner is a bad climber because he uses equipment to make his ascent more safe?

If I could chose between two programmers who say "I don't use safety mechanisms, even when they are offered to me, because I am such a perfect programmer" and "Yeah, you know, bad days happen, but I have guidelines, tools and a language-intrinsic mechanism, which hard prevends half or more of the most common and exploitable programming bugs, but maybe I am a bit slower for the first half year of work", then, yeah, I'd chose the second one and ask the first about his professionalism and where he sees himself in 10, maybe 15, years... maybe alongside the COBOL programmers?

And even if it isn't Rust then it will be a different language. The value of what Rust brings to the table has to be exemplified the first time to make others think about what an upcoming language should provide. Just like Objects, Interfaces, Lambda functions, map/reduce and others came to be and are now standard repertoire for most languages.

But, so far, it is Rust and why not push boundaries in this direction. It will not be the final language and others will come after it, but, yeah, why not?

Borrow checking or something alike will come - must come. It's the next logical step.

[Alexmitter]

I work with C on some embedded project and since I also working with Rust I see that like 70-80% of bugs with I fix in C would be avoided if I just used Rust.

Then you just aren't good in C.

It is for sure nice to have a low level language that is also easily safely writable by someone who just isn't good in programming. But it is not a good thing if that language only properly support like 2 architectures and can only be compiled via the worst currently popular compiler tool chain.

[dragonn]

I have heard that BS before. You can certainly write unsafe rust code, the language allows that. C certainly makes it easier for you to F up, thats about all.

Unsafe code in rust is an exception not a "regular thing" and is good marked in the code, when you write a whole program inside unsafe every other developer will just throw you code inside the garbage bin with you at the same time.
thats about all? That is a f**** big deal, I work with C on some embedded project and since I also working with Rust I see that like 70-80% of bugs with I fix in C would be avoided if I just used Rust.