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

121–130 of 797 posts

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#121

Post by viraptor »

troupo wrote: post #21
justinclift wrote: post #6

One of the follow up messages is interesting: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/10/msg00288.html > Rust is already a hard requirement on all Debian release architectures and ports except for alpha, hppa, m68k, and sh4 (which do not provide sqv). Wonder what this means for those architectures then?

> Wonder what this means for those architectures then? They will be rebranded as "retro computing devices"

Most don't need to be rebranded. Alpha and hppa are retro computing and haven't been available to buy for 18 and 15 years respectively. Sh4 died this year. Only m68k is still holding on, but is a rounding error in the number is users.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#123

Post by viraptor »

Surac wrote: post #94

I think this is the wrong way to promote rust. For me rust is just a hype. I know nobody that programms or even thinks about rust. I’m from the embedded world an there c is still king. I understand that some will see rust as a good alternative, but as long as the real money is made in c it is not ready

https://github.com/avr-rust

https://github.com/esp-rs

https://github.com/rust-embedded/cortex-m

Even the embedded world is slowly changing.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#124

Post by testdelacc1 »

lelanthran wrote: post #102
testdelacc1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm battling to think of any other about-to-go-mainstream language that had the reputation of a hostile community. Because you’re young or you weren't around in 2010 when Go was gaining adoption. Same shit back then. People said “I like the language, it’s quite useful” followed by tirades from people who thought it was the end of human civilisation. It had exactly the reputation you speak of. (“DAE generics???”) Ev…

> Because you’re young or you weren't around in 2010 when Go was gaining adoption. I've been working as a programmer since the mid-90s >> I'm battling to think of any other about-to-go-mainstream language that had the reputation of a hostile community. > People said “I like the language, it’s quite useful” followed by tirades from people who thought it was the end of human civilisation. And? That's not the same as ha…

> not the same as having a hostile community

Hostile according to who? According to the haters, maybe. I’m sure the Go community was called “hostile” by haters back in the day.

Look at the drama created by Linux maintainers who were being insanely hostile, coming up with spurious objections, being absolute asshats - to the point where even Linus said enough was enough. The Rust for Linux members conducted themselves with dignity throughout. The Linux subsystem maintainers acted like kindergarteners.

But of course, haters will read the same emails and confirmation bias will tell them they’re right and Rust is the problem.

Keep hating.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#125

Post by viraptor »

Antibabelic wrote: post #32
nikanj wrote: post #15

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

Is it just the "retro-computing hobby"? There could still be businesses who might need support for old machines, especially in developing countries. I don't know the actual situation though, I'm open to the idea that my suggestion is insane.

Those businesses usually have very purpose-built machines. Like USG machines running windows xp in hospitals. You normally don't touch them, just isolate. You definitely don't update them to the latest OS version.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#126

Post by timeon »

tcfhgj wrote: post #10
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 haven't either, until I read comments on Rust in Linux on social media outside HN. Apparently, Rust is part of the "woke agenda"

Reading loaded adjectives for programming languages is waste of time. I would skip that kind of social media.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#127

Post by timeon »

lelanthran wrote: post #80
testdelacc1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acolytes being the people talking positively about their experience using a language and the strengths they think it has. So the people with positive opinions should say nothing at all, and the people with negative opinions should be free to share. And somehow, you think this will lead to faster adoption. That’s an interesting thought. It would run counter to everything we know about human nature, but interesting nev…

> Acolytes being the people talking positively about their experience using a language and the strengths they think it has. No, it's the people who have given rise to the multiple Rust memes over the years. I'm battling to think of any other about-to-go-mainstream language that had the reputation of a hostile community. Scala? Kotlin? Swift? Zig? None of those languages have built such poor reputations for their comm…

> Scala? Kotlin? Swift? Zig? None of those languages have built such poor reputations for their communities.

> I didn't see C++ users jumping into Rust threads posting attacks, but there are many examples of Rust users jumping into C++ or C threads, posting attacks.

I already seen this with Zig. And even without language communities. Look at this whole thread. Look in to the mirror. Regularly when Rust is mentioned on HN. Anti-Rust cult comes to complain that there is Rust.

Even if someone just posts "I have made this with Rust" - then this cult comes and complains "why do you need to mention Rust?!". Like look at your self. Who hurt you?

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#128

Post by timeon »

lelanthran wrote: post #73
kaoD wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience from these threads, there are more people polluting the discussion by complaining about Rust "acolytes" than actual acolytes. Rust haters seem strangely obsessed.

> Rust haters seem strangely obsessed. Well, this is a great example. People complaining about the community are labeled as people complaining about the language. Do you not see the problem here?

If you change it to "Rust community haters seem strangely obsessed.", it is still valid.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#129

Post by tclancy »

noosphr wrote: post #31
AlotOfReading wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to sully CL with this kind of elitism. Any language you need to be a genius to use is a bad language. That's one of the fundamental issues with C. We're all imperfect idiots some of the time and one instance of undefined behavior breaks any guarantees the language gives you.

I find that languages with a high intellectual barrier to entry are much more pleasant places to be since people like the OP can't understand them and we never have people try to bully us into doing things _the right way_. This is someone who says things like >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…

> since people like the OP can't understand them and we never have people try to bully us

Yes well, glad to hear there’s no one bullying people there!

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#130

Post by curt15 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #42
justinclift wrote: post #6

One of the follow up messages is interesting: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/10/msg00288.html > Rust is already a hard requirement on all Debian release architectures and ports except for alpha, hppa, m68k, and sh4 (which do not provide sqv). Wonder what this means for those architectures then?

m68k has a LLVM port already, so Rust can be implemented for that platform.[0] It would be nice to have LLVM backends for alpha, hppa and sh4 - these older architectures tend to be quite simple so a working LLVM has plenty of value as a reference and for educational use. (LLVM even used to have an in-tree DEC Alpha backend, though that was back in 2011 and not relevant to any version of Rust.) [0] Looks like there is…

Shouldn't the codegen_gcc project[1] theoretically allow Rust to target backends that only GCC supports?

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc_codegen_gcc

Post reply on HN