21–30 of 797 posts
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?
They will be rebranded as "retro computing devices"
> 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.
I suspect if this mailing list post doesn't go too under the radar, that last sentence will be a source of major regret.
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"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person making the post is getting paid by Ubuntu.
Needs a perhaps with question mark or some proof.
https://mastodon.social/@juliank
>Senior Engineer at Canonical.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Ada and SPARK fulfilled the promise of a safe systems language decades ago without making most of the mistakes Rust does. Rust has its strong sides, sure, but it's far from the only shop in town. The GCC happens to include an Ada compiler as well.
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.
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…
you see, GP did not speak in relative terms, but absolutely: They believe Rust has problems. They did not suggest that problems with programming languages are basically all fungible, that we should sum up all problems, compare different languages, and see which ones come out on top.