Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are modern ways to express something safely that is written unsafely in C. What Rust evangelists seem to forget is that there have been ways to do that for a long time. The article actually has very little safe Rust in it. It makes me wonder what we are gaining? If the idea is that introducing Rust means that later you can go back and add type and memory safety...why not use C++ in a type and safe by constructi…
Have you ever written anything in Rust?
Rewrite Linux Kernel in Rust?
131–133 of 133 posts
Re: Rewrite Linux Kernel in Rust?
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we agree about something at least ;-) Slight tangent: I started my programming career in 1989. The product was Parasolid and the language was AGA - a C inspired language that preceded C++. I vaguely remember the following extensions: * built in logging with Undo * overloaded operators leading to vector and interval types that worked better than C++ * a proper module system
Interesting. Never heard of it. The main safe language from that time was Ada. It's been updated regularly. The neat thing about it is how it was systematically designed to mitigate errors in about every operation. http://www.adacore.com/knowledge/technical-papers/safe-and-s... There's also a variant called SPARK that can automatically prove the absence of errors like buffer overflow in a way that would normally take…
You wouldn't of. It was developed internally to write Parasolid. Probably they still use it - several of the original devs are still there 30 years later.
Re: Rewrite Linux Kernel in Rust?
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. Never heard of it. The main safe language from that time was Ada. It's been updated regularly. The neat thing about it is how it was systematically designed to mitigate errors in about every operation. http://www.adacore.com/knowledge/technical-papers/safe-and-s... There's also a variant called SPARK that can automatically prove the absence of errors like buffer overflow in a way that would normally take…
>Interesting. Never heard of it. You wouldn't of. It was developed internally to write Parasolid. Probably they still use it - several of the original devs are still there 30 years later.
http://www.semdesigns.com/Products/Parlanse/index.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20130303055647/http://www.founda...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_(programming_language)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxen_(web_server)
Parlanse is used in Semantic Designs' powerful toolkit. Flow was used to make a Spanner competitor, FoundationDB, that was good enough in some way for Apple to buy & pull off the market. Pike was used to build Roxen server that had significant advantages in its time period. A number of companies also used LISP and REBOL for their advantages with at least one asking LispWorks to do a real-time implementation for telecom or something. So, usually it pays to go with a common, often-crappy language with its ecosystem. However, doing one's own language with competitive edge does pay off at times. I think these days one can just do a DSL in Racket or Haskell on top of main language to negate benefits of totally rolling own stuff. People got far with it, though. Galois is on a roll with that in high-assurance systems with this as an example:
https://ivorylang.org/ivory-introduction.html
So, just some fun examples of homebrew for you in return. :)