Sealed Rust Update
ferrous-systems.com
Sealed Rust Update
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: Sealed Rust Update
#2The working URL
https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/sealed-rust-the-plan/
Re: Sealed Rust Update
#3I want much more runtime performance out of rust more than anything else. Faster builds are second on the list. This probably doesn't even make top 10. Who is this aimed at? And I would hate for those top goals to be subverted for this.
Re: Sealed Rust Update
#4I want much more runtime performance out of rust more than anything else. Faster builds are second on the list. This probably doesn't even make top 10. Who is this aimed at? And I would hate for those top goals to be subverted for this.
From the previous blog post ("Part 1: The Pitch"[1]):
> We hope that the Sealed Rust effort would be applicable to any developers working in safety critical software domains, such as:
> Automotive (under safety standard ISO26262)
> Industrial (under safety standard IEC61508)
> Robotics (under a number of safety standards deriving from IEC61508)
> Medical Devices (under safety standard IEC62304)
> Avionics (under safety standard DO-178)
[1]: https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/sealed-rust-the-pitch/
Re: Sealed Rust Update
#5I want much more runtime performance out of rust more than anything else. Faster builds are second on the list. This probably doesn't even make top 10. Who is this aimed at? And I would hate for those top goals to be subverted for this.
Different people have different needs. There’s also room for many different people to work on different problems at the same time without imposing constraints on each other.
Re: Sealed Rust Update
#6I know some of those words... Sounds really neat. Hope it goes well.
Re: Sealed Rust Update
#7I want much more runtime performance out of rust more than anything else. Faster builds are second on the list. This probably doesn't even make top 10. Who is this aimed at? And I would hate for those top goals to be subverted for this.
1.) Do you work in safety critical software? If not, this is not for you.
2.) This is a third party, this is not taking resources from generic rust.
Re: Sealed Rust Update
#8I don't get why there is so much love for Rust but so little love for Ada?
Re: Sealed Rust Update
#9I don't get why there is so much love for Rust but so little love for Ada?
There's a lot of love for Ada. Unlike Rust, Ada is already an approved language and toolchain for safety-critical software development. That Sealed Rust is trying to do what it takes to get Rust into the approved language & toolchain category along side Ada is entirely the point, and what makes it interesting.
Re: Sealed Rust Update
#10This is an important effort, but it's weird (disconcerting?) to me that something so fundamental as a formal language specification (for a language that advertises safety as a key feature) is being bootstrapped not by the core team, but by a third party. It doesn't feel like that's something you only need "collaboration with" the core team about. I can't think of anything that's more "core".
The rest of it makes sense as an auxiliary effort: working directly with relatively niche industries on certification, narrowing down a fully-safe subset of the language, etc. But I don't see how Rust can ever come into its own in the space that it's targeting without having a real specification outside of the compiler.