Live data from Hacker News

Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental

lwn.net

41–50 of 853 posts

Re: Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental

#41
post #27

Not a system programmer -- at this point, does C hold any significant advantage over Rust? Is it inevitable that everything written in C is going to be gradually converted to safer languages?

Before we ask if almost all things old will be rewritten in Rust, we should ask if almost all things new are being written in Rust or other memory-safe languages? Obviously not. When will that happen? 15 years? Maybe it's generational: How long before developers 'born' into to memory-safe languages as serious choices will be substantially in charge of software development?

I'm a bit wary if this is hiding an agist sentiment, though. I doubt most Rust developers were 'born into' the language, but instead adopted it on top of existing experience in other languages.

Re: Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental

#43

Not a system programmer -- at this point, does C hold any significant advantage over Rust? Is it inevitable that everything written in C is going to be gradually converted to safer languages?

C currently remains the language of system ABIs, and there remains functionality that C can express that Rust cannot (principally bitfields). Furthermore, in terms of extensions to the language to support more obtuse architecture, Rust has made a couple of decisions that make it hard for some of those architectures to be supported well. For example, Rust has decided that the array index type, the object size type, an…

I'm genuinely surprised that usize pointer convertibility exists. Even Go has different types for pointer-width integers (uintptr) and sizes of things (int/uint). I can only guess that Rust's choice was seen as a harmless simplification at the time. Is it something that can be fixed with editions? My guess is no, or at least not easily.

Re: Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental

#46
post #27

Not a system programmer -- at this point, does C hold any significant advantage over Rust? Is it inevitable that everything written in C is going to be gradually converted to safer languages?

Before we ask if almost all things old will be rewritten in Rust, we should ask if almost all things new are being written in Rust or other memory-safe languages? Obviously not. When will that happen? 15 years? Maybe it's generational: How long before developers 'born' into to memory-safe languages as serious choices will be substantially in charge of software development?

> Obviously not

Is it obvious? I haven't heard of new projects in non-memory-safe languages lately, and I would think they would struggle to attract contributors.

Re: Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental

#47
post #16

This title is moderately clickbait-y and comes with a subtle implication that Rust might be getting removed from the kernel. IMO it should be changed to "Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental"

I absolutely understand the sentiment, but LWN is a second-to-none publication that on this rare occasion couldn't resist the joke, and also largely plays to an audience who will immediately understand that it's tongue-in-cheek. Speaking as a subscriber of about two decades who perhaps wouldn't have a career without the enormous amount of high-quality education provided by LWN content, or at least a far lesser one: L…

He didn't intend it as a joke and his intent matches the op's title revision request: https://lwn.net/Articles/1049840/

Re: Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental

#48

This title is moderately clickbait-y and comes with a subtle implication that Rust might be getting removed from the kernel. IMO it should be changed to "Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental"

I think on HN, people generally want the submission's title to match the page's title. (I do agree it's clickbait-y though)

I prefer improved titles. However, not in this case. It is rather irony, because LWN does not need click-bait.

Re: Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental

#49

This title is moderately clickbait-y and comes with a subtle implication that Rust might be getting removed from the kernel. IMO it should be changed to "Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental"

i agree and this matches the authors intent: https://lwn.net/Articles/1049840/

Re: Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental

#50
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why most of the world has not been using c/c++ for decades.

Most software development these days is JS/Typescript slop, popular doesn't equal better

You can write slop in any language. And good software for that matter.
Post reply on HN