What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust • Hacker News Board

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#21

Post by ahartmetz » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 6:37 PM UTC

pizlonator wrote: post #13

Here's the chasm I want to see Rust cross: Dynamic linking with a safe ABI, where if you change and recompile one library then the outcome has to obey some definition of safety, and ABI stability is about as good as C or Objective-C or Swift. Until that happens, it'll be hard to adopt Rust in a lot of C/C++ strongholds where C's ABI and dynamic linking are the thing that enables the software to get huge.

Dynamic linking is also great for compile time of debug builds. If a large library or application is split up into smaller shared libraries, ones unaffected by changes don't need to be touched at all. Runtime dynamic linking has a small overhead, but it's several orders of magnitude faster than compile-time linking, so not a problem in debug builds.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#22

Post by Wobbles42 » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #15

throw384748 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Rust does not even have a specification Neither do most programming languages. > You are lucky if current version, compiles two years old code! That's not true.

> Neither do most programming languages.

Rust is trying to replace C++ and C in particular. Those languages have specifications.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#23

Post by School-Cotton » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 6:40 PM UTC

Iridescent_ wrote: post #16

throw384748 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Rust has editions for strong stability guarantees, and has had them for nearly a decade i believe. Besides, tech backing has grown way past the risky point.

FWIW, the GP comment's claim that you're lucky if you can compile 2-year-old code is exaggerated, but so is yours. Rust does not offer "strong stability guarantees". Adding a new method to a standard type or trait can break method inference, and the Rust standard library does that all the time.

In C or C++, this isn't supposed to happen: a conformant implementation claiming to support e.g. C++17 would use ifdefs to gate off new C++20 library functions when compiling in C++17 mode.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#24

Post by Wobbles42 » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 6:41 PM UTC

vablings wrote: post #6

bbkane wrote: post #3

Really good references to "crossing the chasm" between early adopter needs and mainstream needs. In addition to the Ubuntu coreutils use case, I wonder what other chasms Rust is attempting to cross. I know Rust for Linux (though I think that's still relegated to drivers?) and automotive (not sure where that is).

There are big pushes in pretty much every direction. The projects that really stand out to me are pyo3 (Replace c++ python modules with rust), Dioxus (react-like web framework), The ferrocine qualified compiler (automotive) I think right now the ecosystem is pretty ripe and with DARPA TRACTOR there are only more and more reasons every day to put rust on your toolbelt. I am secretly hoping that eventually we break fre…

Are mid level and junior developers being hired anywhere for any reason right now? I don't mean specifically rust developers. I mean software developers.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#25

Post by canadiantim » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 6:41 PM UTC

system2 wrote: post #11

Why am I hearing about Rust a lot these days? Did anything significant happen?

AI has made it exceptionally easy to program with.

I've switched to using Rust from Python simply because of AI development

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#26

Post by psyclobe » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

Sudo no longer supporting path inheritance kinda sucks

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#27

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 6:43 PM UTC

ahartmetz wrote: post #21

pizlonator wrote: post #13

Here's the chasm I want to see Rust cross: Dynamic linking with a safe ABI, where if you change and recompile one library then the outcome has to obey some definition of safety, and ABI stability is about as good as C or Objective-C or Swift. Until that happens, it'll be hard to adopt Rust in a lot of C/C++ strongholds where C's ABI and dynamic linking are the thing that enables the software to get huge.

Dynamic linking is also great for compile time of debug builds. If a large library or application is split up into smaller shared libraries, ones unaffected by changes don't need to be touched at all. Runtime dynamic linking has a small overhead, but it's several orders of magnitude faster than compile-time linking, so not a problem in debug builds.

for developer turnaround time, it is huge. we explicitly do not statically link Ardour because as developers we are in the edit-compile-debug cycle all day every day, and speeding up the link step (which dynamic linking does dramatically, especially with parallel linkers like lld) is a gigantic improvement to our quality of life and productivity.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#28

Post by ahartmetz » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 6:43 PM UTC

eptcyka wrote: post #17

pizlonator wrote: post #13

Here's the chasm I want to see Rust cross: Dynamic linking with a safe ABI, where if you change and recompile one library then the outcome has to obey some definition of safety, and ABI stability is about as good as C or Objective-C or Swift. Until that happens, it'll be hard to adopt Rust in a lot of C/C++ strongholds where C's ABI and dynamic linking are the thing that enables the software to get huge.

The C ABI can already be used, it comes with all the existing safety guarantees that C will provide. Isn’t this as good as C?

Not really. The foreign ABI requires a foreign API, which adds friction that you don't have with C exporting a C API / ABI. I've never tried, but I would guess that it adds a lot of friction.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#29

Post by 0x457 » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 6:44 PM UTC

petcat wrote: post #8

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #2

I've been a fan of all rust-based utilities that I've used. I am worried that 20+ (??) years of bug fixes and edge-case improvements can't be accounted for by simply using a newer/better code-base. A lot of bug fixes/exploits are _CAUSED_ by the C+ core, but still... Tried & true vs new hotness?

Is Rust still considered "new hotness"? I feel like the industry has long-since moved past that perceived "blocker". It seems like Rust is now just the default in all manner of critical systems.

Rust - no. sudo-rs not hotness, but relatively new.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#30

Post by pizlonator » Mon, Feb 23, 2026, 6:45 PM UTC

elteto wrote: post #18

pizlonator wrote: post #13

Here's the chasm I want to see Rust cross: Dynamic linking with a safe ABI, where if you change and recompile one library then the outcome has to obey some definition of safety, and ABI stability is about as good as C or Objective-C or Swift. Until that happens, it'll be hard to adopt Rust in a lot of C/C++ strongholds where C's ABI and dynamic linking are the thing that enables the software to get huge.

> Until that happens, it'll be hard to adopt Rust in a lot of C/C++ strongholds where C's ABI and dynamic linking are the thing that enables the software to get huge. Wait, Rust can already communicate using the C ABI. In fact, it offers exactly the same capabilities as C++ in this regard (dynamic linking).

That's an unsafe ABI.