Originally posted by edxposed
View Post
3K Lines Of New Rust Infrastructure Code Head Into Linux 6.13
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Old Grouch View PostOne of the challenges with Rust, as I see it, is that there is currently no formal specification of the language.
Now, Rust getting specified to a level that C and C++ are not and never will never be because of politics between the various implementers? Yes, I'm all for that... but don't throw stones from glass houses swiss-cheese'd with holes labelled "implementation defined".
...especially when what the Linux kernel is currently written in (GNU C11 plus reliance on various GCC-specific ANSI C "implementation defined" decisions that Clang copied) isn't formally specified either.Last edited by ssokolow; 26 November 2024, 10:06 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by intelfx View Post
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Old Grouch View PostOne of the challenges with Rust, as I see it, is that there is currently no formal specification of the language.
Now, one can say that 'the documentation is the code', and ultimately, that is the truth, but it is a little difficult to work with. Formal specifications matter if you are trying to validate multiple compilers, or determine if behaviour is correctly implemented.
It also increases the challenge of attempting proofs of formal correctness of code.
But anyway, having a standard is not an end in itself. It is because C and C++ languages were historically implemented as a pile of independent and mostly proprietary compilers, they needed a standard. Not the other way around.
When a language, like Rust, is developed from day 1 with a free/libre implementation that's simultaneously the reference implementation and the production implementation, any need for a standard is greatly diminished.
Now, this does not preclude the potential need for a formal specification. But that's a very different story (and one which is already being worked on).Last edited by intelfx; 26 November 2024, 02:31 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by uid313 View PostWhich part or subsystem of the Linux kernel would like the most to see adopt Rust?
Is it graphics device drivers? or the network stack? or is it file systems? ext4 or Btrfs or a brand-new one? Perhaps the CPU scheduler or the I/O scheduler?
having an alternative to Linux would be far better than making a hodge podge kernel full of language politics.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Britoid View Post
Linux is a toy unless they get official backing or support from Microsoft themselves.
Oh, wouldja lookit that. Microsoft also cares enough about Rust that they donate Azure time for its giant regression/conformance suite that runs on every push.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Volta View Post
Not only this. LWN became rust propagandistic tube. I bet rust woke foundation is paying them.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Vorpal View PostCould we just have a civilised discussion? For once? Please?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
Y'all are upset that a Linux Tech Site that writes articles that cover practically every kernel commit as well as advancements in programming languages reported on a kernel commit that helps to advance a programming language. There are three different articles today that are about various Linux 6.13 features. Those are sponsored content from the Woke Linux Foundation
Comment
-
Comment