Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hard Rust requirements from May onward

lists.debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 797 posts

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#11

Post by Mond_ »

uecker wrote: post #5
CartwheelLinux wrote: post #2

The language is tough love, and I think it's important despite what the first respondent has said. Much of the language used seems to stem from nauseating interactions that have occured in kernel world around rust usage. I'm not a big fan of rust for reasons that were not brought up during the kernel discussions, but I'm also not an opponent of moving forward. I don't quite understand the pushback against memory safe…

I think the spin that Rust is necessarily the way forward is what is wrong. IMHO Rust has severe problems and what is considered "modern" is mostly taste. We have seen the same thing in the past with a push towards C++, Java, managed languages. What is new is that the free software movement is now controlled so much by corporate interests that some of these changes are pushed through aggressively against the interest…

> IMHO Rust has severe problems and what is considered "modern" is mostly taste.

Really? As opposed to e.g. C or C++ (as the most important languages which Rust is competing with)? Sure, taste plays into everything, but I think a lot of people work with Rust since it's genuinely a better tool.

I hear you on free software being controlled by corporate interests, but that's imo a separate discussion from how good Rust is as a language.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#12

Post by TheChaplain »

CartwheelLinux wrote: post #2

The language is tough love, and I think it's important despite what the first respondent has said. Much of the language used seems to stem from nauseating interactions that have occured in kernel world around rust usage. I'm not a big fan of rust for reasons that were not brought up during the kernel discussions, but I'm also not an opponent of moving forward. I don't quite understand the pushback against memory safe…

[flagged]

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#13

Post by noosphr »

I don't get the need for Rust since I happily compile common lisp to machine code when I need fast binaries.

But the people who use the language have an amazing talent to make people on the fence hate them within half a dozen sentences.

They remind me of Christian missionaries trying to convert the savages from their barbarous religions with human sacrifice to the civilised religion with burning heretics.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#15

Post by nikanj »

The language is incredibly frank, and I agree with it completely. The retro-computing hobby doesn't need the ability to run contemporary operating systems.

It's insane that x86 Debian is still compiling all software targeting Pentium Pro (from 1995!).

x64 Debian is a bit more modern, and you must splurge for a CPU from 2005 (Prescott) to get the plethora of features it requires

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#16

Post by noosphr »

Mond_ wrote: post #11
uecker wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the spin that Rust is necessarily the way forward is what is wrong. IMHO Rust has severe problems and what is considered "modern" is mostly taste. We have seen the same thing in the past with a push towards C++, Java, managed languages. What is new is that the free software movement is now controlled so much by corporate interests that some of these changes are pushed through aggressively against the interest…

> IMHO Rust has severe problems and what is considered "modern" is mostly taste. Really? As opposed to e.g. C or C++ (as the most important languages which Rust is competing with)? Sure, taste plays into everything, but I think a lot of people work with Rust since it's genuinely a better tool. I hear you on free software being controlled by corporate interests, but that's imo a separate discussion from how good Rust…

I'm very happy with common lisp for fast code.

Of course most people aren't smart enough for the language so they have to use inferior algol languages like rust.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#17

Post by noobermin »

noosphr wrote: post #13

I don't get the need for Rust since I happily compile common lisp to machine code when I need fast binaries. But the people who use the language have an amazing talent to make people on the fence hate them within half a dozen sentences. They remind me of Christian missionaries trying to convert the savages from their barbarous religions with human sacrifice to the civilised religion with burning heretics.

[flagged]

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#18

Post by mirashii »

uecker wrote: post #5
CartwheelLinux wrote: post #2

The language is tough love, and I think it's important despite what the first respondent has said. Much of the language used seems to stem from nauseating interactions that have occured in kernel world around rust usage. I'm not a big fan of rust for reasons that were not brought up during the kernel discussions, but I'm also not an opponent of moving forward. I don't quite understand the pushback against memory safe…

I think the spin that Rust is necessarily the way forward is what is wrong. IMHO Rust has severe problems and what is considered "modern" is mostly taste. We have seen the same thing in the past with a push towards C++, Java, managed languages. What is new is that the free software movement is now controlled so much by corporate interests that some of these changes are pushed through aggressively against the interest…

This whole it used to be different thing is looking back with rose tinted glasses. It’s always been the case that project maintainers were able to make choices that the community didn’t necessarily agree with, corporate backed contributors or not, and it’s still a possibility to fork and try to prove out that the other stance is better.

Nobody is being forced out of the community, you can fork and not adopt the changes if you want. Thats the real point of free software, that you have the freedom to make that choice. The whole point of free software was never that the direction of the software should be free from corporate control in some way, the maintainers of a project have always had the authority to make decisions about their own project, whether individual or corporate or a mix.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#19

Post by IshKebab »

littlestymaar wrote: post #3

> It's important for the project as whole to be able to > move forward and rely on modern tools and technologies > and not be held back by trying to shoehorn modern software > on retro computing devices. Rust is the present and the future and it's quite logical that it becomes a key requirement in Linux distributions, but I'm really not convinced by the wording here… This last sentence feels needlessly antagonistic.

Feels accurate to me. He's clearly anticipating the "but how will I run Debian on my PDP-11??" naysayers that always try to derail things.
Post reply on HN