41–50 of 542 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
I am the only one who would have a hard time to collaborate on a project where the "collaborators" start their message with > You need to realize that > (a) reality trumps fantasy ?
> I am the only one [...] ? Have you missed the years and years of people criticizing Linus for his communication style?
To put things in context, Linus is being reasonable and wise and well-mannered once again. Wouldn't mind reading a few juicy expletives, to be honest.
Quoted post unavailable.
People who feel they are putting up with Linus can just `cp linux/ betterlinux/`. If it's actually better and Linus was holding things back by being an insufferabe cunt, they can expect a huge amount of people to switch to their fork as well.
Why is panicing in the kernel on an error not an option? Like kernels can write a core dump and reboot, right?
It would be cool if kernel Rust could implement a panic handler which just killed the offending module, but I’m assuming from the discussion around panics that this isn’t possible.
From the closing paragraph, I feel like he’s under the impression that Rust-advocating contributors are putting Rust’s interests (e.g. “legitimizing it” by getting it in the kernel) above the kernel itself.
None of that is going to save us from bad code.
Some of the biggest systems that run the world are not written with either safe code nor strongly typed languages.
Yes I would say strongly typed languages and memory safe languages help make coding easier and indeed save time and some bugs.
But when you get past making the kinds of errors that cause memory problems or bad types…
You are still left with 95% of the bugs and logic errors anyway.
Still, 5% savings in productivity is not nothing.
Yes, we know. We get it. Rust is not an absolute guarantee of safety and doesn’t protect us from all the bugs. This is obvious and well-known to anyone actually using Rust.
At this point, the argument feels like some sort of ideological debate happening outside the realm of actually getting work done. It feels like any time someone says that Rust defends against certain types of safety errors, someone feels obligated to pop out of the background and remind everyone that it doesn’t protect against every code safety issue.
I am the only one who would have a hard time to collaborate on a project where the "collaborators" start their message with > You need to realize that > (a) reality trumps fantasy ?