Live data from Hacker News

Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

marc.info

41–50 of 344 posts

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#41
post #18
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Go: https://github.com/ericlagergren/go-coreutils Does he really not know this or is he ignoring them to make a point?

It uses remote dependencies. First compilation in a single-run environment will be very slow, there won't be second compilation. Go compiler is fast when you add the `-i` flag, without it it takes a couple of seconds to compile a few hundred lines, a few more minutes when you have to `go get` packages. Now, github goes down, your build is broken for that time.

Not sure what the "it" is in your first sentence, but allow me to address the rest of your points. "First compilation ... will be very slow": the go compiler is in fact quite fast, orders of magnitude faster than C++ or rust compilers. The fact that there's a noticeable pause when you want to compile thousands of files does not mean that its slow. "There won't be a second compilation": not for each top level tool, but there certainly could be shared packages that don't need to be recompiled. "Go compiler is fast when you add the `-i` flag", ok, do that then. "Now, github goes down, your build is broken": you only need to depend on external github references if you want always to build against the latest version of your referenced code. I can't imagine anyone interested in stability wants this. There are lots of options for vendoring your dependencies in tree.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#42
post #33

> So rather than bothering to begin, you wrote an email. This is where Theo appears to me to be quite different to eg Linus. He plays the man, not the ball, with personal attacks.

Where's the attack there? It's a statement of fact.

If I say "You have a big nose, it makes you ugly" as the first line in my email, it may well be a "statement of fact" and yet still be a personal attack. Your implication that a statement of fact cannot be a personal attack is untrue.

Whether the OP has or has not written Posix utilities in rust is of no relevance to the actual argument whatsoever, it is just a way to have a dig at the OP.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#43
post #31
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are still using i386? I'd assume even if they are, it's such a tiny minority that it shouldn't be an excuse to hold everyone else back.

OpenBSD supports a wide variety of hardware platforms, including machines with Alpha, PA-RISC, and SPARC64 processors. On each of them, the base system is able to compile itself. If rustc cannot even build itself on i386, what kind of support can we expect for other platforms with an even smaller user base? On a project such as OpenBSD they cannot suddenly drop platforms and only support amd64 as portability is one o…

> On a project such as OpenBSD they cannot suddenly drop platforms and only support amd64 as portability

They… don't need to? That rustc can't compile itself on i386 doesn't mean you can't ship a rustc for i386, it just means you have to cross-compile it.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#44
A bit incendiary:

I fail to see what advantage rewriting existing and proven tools with a new language would bring. Shouldn't the main value new tools bring to be enable writing of new things?

Isn't focusing on existing utils more like a lack of imagination and OCD on optimizing a thing beyond any further value?

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the complete lack of viable competition in the space, that day is a long way off.

Why is Redox not viable competition?

Are you joking? Are you running large, mission-critical systems in production on Redox already?

I'm sure it will be good enough for that some day, but that day is not now.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has a point though... As we get more CPU/ram we as programmers don't even bother to check how many resources we are using. Personally, I don't know whether its a good thing or a bad thing. Also in terms of systems languages I believe only rust has some potential to truly replace C. Although, a large part of C usage still takes place in the embedded world where rust has yet to be ported to many embedded processors.…

> He has a point though… Does he? He "stat[es as] fact" that > There has been no attempt to move the smallest parts of the ecosystem, to provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. which as xwvvvvwx notes is categorically wrong, then points out that rustc can't compile itself on i386, which is relevant… how?

He's talking specifically about OpenBSD base. Unless you can point to a rust binary in OpenBSD that Theo forgot about, he's not wrong.

i386 is relevant because OpenBSD supports i386.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#47
The bootstrap problem is real and getting worse: go needs go, haskell needs haskell, rust needs rust; it's nasty.

There are already "better" and "safer" languages that could easily replace the entire unix userland. Heck, awk can do half of it, but all of that C code is already written...

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#49
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenBSD supports a wide variety of hardware platforms, including machines with Alpha, PA-RISC, and SPARC64 processors. On each of them, the base system is able to compile itself. If rustc cannot even build itself on i386, what kind of support can we expect for other platforms with an even smaller user base? On a project such as OpenBSD they cannot suddenly drop platforms and only support amd64 as portability is one o…

> On a project such as OpenBSD they cannot suddenly drop platforms and only support amd64 as portability They… don't need to? That rustc can't compile itself on i386 doesn't mean you can't ship a rustc for i386, it just means you have to cross-compile it.

Addressed in the article.

> In OpenBSD there is a strict requirement that base builds base.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#50
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that Linus's attacks are usually good intentioned, to get people in the Linux community to act better. I am not sure what Theo's intent is.

If you want to effect change, do some work, don't write emails.

As can be expected from a project with a slogan of "Shut up and hack"[1].

[1] https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#51b

As the notes indicate, this saying goes back much further than this release song.

Post reply on HN