More Rust Code Readied For Linux 6.3 - Closer To Having Rust Drivers Upstreamed

[mmstick]

That's not proof. They can write anything, or ask, anyone they want.

And the fact that it's still not the most widely used (by far) shows that yes, indeed, either those developers don't matter, they're lying, or the results are made up.

Clown.

Cope 🤡

[cj.wijtmans]

Only idiots that dont know how to program use Rust. Ownership system... you can literally write that in C++, it even exists in STL. The whole point of C++ IS an ownership system compared to C. Containers are classes that deal with raw pointers so you dont have to, and so you dont have to be anal about tracking the scope. Most C++ compilers also come with a memory analyzer. A lot of corporate and communist lies in this thread. Be real, without C++'s design choices Rust would not even exist. Its just a jealousy language because some CS degrees could not handle writing what they needed by themselves in C++. Was C++ flawed? Yes especially decades ago when i had to convince people a swapping/moving/forwarding mechanism was needed because of redundant copies in STL. The language evolved a stronger standard too that was lacking. And it will continue to evolve and be better than dyslexic Rust.

[Ironmask]

But X is dead; C++ is far from dead. Even if Rust is better and gaining traction, C++ is still big. X is also still big, but more in the sense of legacy big, not because it's actively being worked on. So apples to oranges.

Right, it is apples to oranges. C++ isn't dead, but it definitely needs to be culled. We're seeing an industry-wide movement to accomplish this at a scale never before seen, except maybe with Java if you want to count that, but that was purely due to marketing, not a legitimate need to harden our software. Most of the world has realized C++ is an active source of bugs and realizes it needs to be replaced by absolutely anything else. If not Rust, then languages that compile to C++.
Of course, Rust isn't only targeting C++, it's every unsafe language (which is a lot of them, when you count typing and null pointer issues), but C++ is the biggest target for this.

Only idiots that dont know how to program use Rust. Ownership system... you can literally write that in C++, it even exists in STL. The whole point of C++ IS an ownership system compared to C. Containers are classes that deal with raw pointers so you dont have to, and so you dont have to be anal about tracking the scope. Most C++ compilers also come with a memory analyzer. A lot of corporate and communist lies in this thread. Be real, without C++'s design choices Rust would not even exist. Its just a jealousy language because some CS degrees could not handle writing what they needed by themselves in C++. Was C++ flawed? Yes especially decades ago when i had to convince people a swapping/moving/forwarding mechanism was needed because of redundant copies in STL. The language evolved a stronger standard too that was lacking. And it will continue to evolve and be better than dyslexic Rust.

I don't think you know what Rust's ownership system is.
Although you're just kind of a bad troll since your only argument against Rust is "everyone is an idiot except for me", which, ironically, has the opposite effect of making you look smart.
You should probably just try it some time so you can get over your phobia. It's gonna be a big part of Linux in a decade or so when more major drivers are implemented in it. May as well get adjusted to it now.

Oh, yeah, I just wanted to point out how incomprehensibly stupid your "people aren't smart enough for this language" comment is.
The entire point of a programming language is that it's a language. It's for human beings to communicate with, first and foremost, not just with each other but also with themselves, either their future self after they forgot why they wrote that code, or even in the process of writing code. If your language makes any of that complex or more difficult to do any of that than it needs to be, then your language is a failure and literally cannot do the one thing it was made for. This is why languages like Lisp-likes have never really been successful in comparison to other languages. Actually, Lisp and C++ kind of have a lot in common in the sense that one person's code is going to basically look like a different language from another person's code. It's probably one of the biggest reasons people consider C++ ancient- not because it is, but because of how unreasonably esoteric it is.

[cj.wijtmans]

I don't think you know what Rust's ownership system is.
Although you're just kind of a bad troll since your only argument against Rust is "everyone is an idiot except for me", which, ironically, has the opposite effect of making you look smart.
You should probably just try it some time so you can get over your phobia. It's gonna be a big part of Linux in a decade or so when more major drivers are implemented in it. May as well get adjusted to it now.

I am not the only one using c++ so your point is moot. And yeah about this linux thing... i already ditched it even before linus got cucked by beta males and microsoft and decided to enter rust bloatware. There are better operating systems. Have fun parasiting of a flawed kernel instead of writing your own. You guys are like the borg.

[cj.wijtmans]

Right, it is apples to oranges. C++ isn't dead, but it definitely needs to be culled. We're seeing an industry-wide movement to accomplish this at a scale never before seen, except maybe with Java if you want to count that, but that was purely due to marketing, not a legitimate need to harden our software. Most of the world has realized C++ is an active source of bugs and realizes it needs to be replaced by absolutely anything else. If not Rust, then languages that compile to C++.
Of course, Rust isn't only targeting C++, it's every unsafe language (which is a lot of them, when you count typing and null pointer issues), but C++ is the biggest target for this.

If you think c, especially c++, has nullptr problems you are literally retarded and need to check yourself into a shrink.

[cj.wijtmans]

Oh, yeah, I just wanted to point out how incomprehensibly stupid your "people aren't smart enough for this language" comment is.
The entire point of a programming language is that it's a language. It's for human beings to communicate with, first and foremost, not just with each other but also with themselves, either their future self after they forgot why they wrote that code, or even in the process of writing code. If your language makes any of that complex or more difficult to do any of that than it needs to be, then your language is a failure and literally cannot do the one thing it was made for. This is why languages like Lisp-likes have never really been successful in comparison to other languages. Actually, Lisp and C++ kind of have a lot in common in the sense that one person's code is going to basically look like a different language from another person's code. It's probably one of the biggest reasons people consider C++ ancient- not because it is, but because of how unreasonably esoteric it is.

That is hilarious since rust is unreadable by design and is dyslexic. If you think c, especially c++, has nullptr problems then yes you are an idiot. Never mind i see the typical conflation of c and c++ in your comments that alone says enough that you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

[Ironmask]

That is hilarious since rust is unreadable by design and is dyslexic. If you think c, especially c++, has nullptr problems then yes you are an idiot. Never mind i see the typical conflation of c and c++ in your comments that alone says enough that you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

So, which is it? Is Rust unreadable or is it for idiots?
Rust is actually very readable. Actually, it lets me see how my entire program will execute before I even run it, since ownership and lifetimes are an explicit part of the language, and very clearly lay out exactly what components own what resources. I used to somewhat try to manage how resources were owned in other languages, but Rust has completely changed how I think about laying out a program.
Also, Stroustrup made that same logical fallacy of arguing that the NSA's suggestion to stop using C++ is invalidated because they used C and C++ in the same sentence. Yes, I know they are different languages. Not only did I not conflate them as you erroneously suggest, but that argument has zero leverage against anything I said whatsoever. C and/or C++, C/C++, they have the same core underlying issues of not having sane defaults and any attempts to fix them are opt-in and very much out of the way.
And memory problems go far beyond just null pointers (which, yes, C++ and especially C have massive problems with).

Again, I really recommend trying Rust. You don't seem to know what it's even like, since you don't know how to read it or don't know what the ownership model is. It's really not hard, the official book actually makes it really easy.

[oiaohm]

Only idiots that dont know how to program use Rust. Ownership system... you can literally write that in C++, it even exists in STL. The whole point of C++ IS an ownership system compared to C. Containers are classes that deal with raw pointers so you dont have to, and so you dont have to be anal about tracking the scope. Most C++ compilers also come with a memory analyzer. A lot of corporate and communist lies in this thread. Be real, without C++'s design choices Rust would not even exist. Its just a jealousy language because some CS degrees could not handle writing what they needed by themselves in C++. Was C++ flawed? Yes especially decades ago when i had to convince people a swapping/moving/forwarding mechanism was needed because of redundant copies in STL. The language evolved a stronger standard too that was lacking. And it will continue to evolve and be better than dyslexic Rust.

https://pvs-studio.com/fr/blog/posts/0733/

There is a problem here. Rust with memory analyzer due to what the rust language mandates be writenl happen results in better data for the memory analyzer to base it judgement on.

There is also a problem here as you coding modern C++ you start being slower than rust for the same safety level and worse longer code to debug than rust.

I am not the only one using c++ so your point is moot. And yeah about this linux thing... i already ditched it even before linus got cucked by beta males and microsoft and decided to enter rust bloatware. There are better operating systems. Have fun parasiting of a flawed kernel instead of writing your own. You guys are like the borg.

Bloatware what are you talking about. One of the problems with C++ is as you start using it in safe ways it very bloated. Yes rust generated code is larger than unsafe C or C++ using raw pointers but smaller than C++ using std::unique_ptr and the like so call modern C++ mandates. Then with C++ you start having to bring classes and other messy thing in to make it safe.

C++ ownership system based around classes is problem end up making code more complex and more places for compiler errors and human coding errors.

The historic arguments against C++ in the Linux kernel and freebsd kernels have been the same things. Bloat is one of those things. Yes different freebsd developers and openbsd developers are looking at rust as well.

Yes two forms of bloat has been against C++ getting into either OS.
1) increasing number of lines developers need to audit.
2) increasing size of generated machine code to get the same results.

cj.wijtmans there may be a simple problem. C++ may just have too much legacy baggage. Rust has auto smart pointers and other feature auto done so programmer does not have to do all these things.

Rust is very much heading down the path that what people call modern C++ when coding in rust happens basically automatically without developer having to code anything special. Coding something special is to do the unsafe stuff.

C and C++ the shortest code version of a program will the be highly unsafe one. Short version of a rust program by design is to safer.

[Weasel]

Cope 🤡

Cope with lies? Who cares lol.

You gotta cope with reality though. That must be tough.

Get clapped by facts.

[moltonel]

Only idiots that dont know how to program use Rust.

Yes ! Better tools are for losers ! Linters and sanitizers make us weak ! If you can't find all the bugs just by reading the code you're fired ! Programming languages only went downhill after COBOL !