471–480 of 853 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't Hector step down essentially as a direct result of that behavior? https://www.phoronix.com/news/Asahi-Linux-Lead-No-Upstream Do you have an example of other R4L maintainers harassment? Because you've spammed the same single example 3-4 times on this post alone.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If rust didn’t provide value to the Linux kernel, there’s no way it would have made out of the experimental phase. Rust isn’t an invading tribe. It’s just a tool.
> Rust isn’t an invading tribe People doing open-source work often feel very tribal about their code and block ideas that are good but threaten their position in the community. Essentially same thing as office politics except it's not about money, it's about personal pride.
https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/discussions/411#d...
Taken from the above Github discussion regarding Go and Typescript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anyone submitted such a PR to one of my projects and could explain compelling benefits for why doing so would be a general improvement, even considering trade-offs of increased complexity/maintainability, etc., then I'd be delighted they'd cared enough to improve my software.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anyone submitted such a PR to one of my projects and could explain compelling benefits for why doing so would be a general improvement, even considering trade-offs of increased complexity/maintainability, etc., then I'd be delighted they'd cared enough to improve my software.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zig does claim that it > ... has a debug allocator that maintains memory safety in the face of use-after-free and double-free which is probably true (in that it's not possible to violate memory safety on the debug allocator, although it's still a strong claim). But beyond that there isn't really any current marketing for Zig claiming safety, beyond a heading in an overview of "Performance and Safety: Choose Two".
That's a library feature (not intended for release builds), not a language feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some pretext: I'm a Rust skeptic and tired of Rust Evangelism Task Force and Rewrite in Rust movements. --- Yes. I remember that message. Also let's not forget what marcan said [0] [1]. In short, a developer didn't want their C codebase littered with Rust code, which I can understand, then the Rust team said that they can maintain that part, not complicating his life further (Kudos to them), and the developer lashing…
One perspective is that Rust appears to be forced into the Linux kernel through harassment and pressure. Instead of Rust being pulled, carefully, organically and friendly, and while taking good care of any significant objections. Objections like, getting the relevant features from unstable Rust into stable Rust, or getting a second compiler like gccrs (Linux kernel uses gcc for C) fully up and running, or ensuring th…
I have a personal principle of not using LLVM-based languages (equal parts I don't like how LLVM people behave against GCC and I support free software first and foremost), so I personally watch gccrs closely, and my personal ban on Rust will be lifted the day gccrs becomes an alternative compiler.
This brings me to the second biggest reservation about Rust. The language is moving too fast, without any apparent plan or maturing process. Things are labeled unstable, there's no spec, and apparently nobody is working on these very seriously, which you also noted.
I don't understand why people are hostile against gccrs? Can you point me to some discussions?
> It feels somewhat like a corporate takeover, not something where good and benign technology is most important.
As I noted above, the whole Rust ecosystem feels like it's on a crusade, esp. against C++. I write C++, and I play with pointers a lot, and I understand the gotchas, and also the team dynamics and how it's becoming harder to write good software with larger teams regardless of programming language, but the way Rust propels itself forward leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, and I personally don't like to be forced into something. So, while gccrs will remove my personal ban, I'm not sure I'll take the language enthusiastically. On the other hand, another language Rust people apparently hate, Go, ticks all the right boxes as a programming language. Yes, they made some mistakes and turned back from some of them at the last moment, but the whole ordeal looks tidier and better than Rust.
In short, being able to borrow-check things is not a license to push people around like this, and they are building themselves a good countering force with all this enthusiasm they're pumping around.
Oh, I'll only thank them for making other programming languages improve much faster. Like how LLVM has stirred GCC devs into action and made GCC a much better compiler in no time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rightfully so, its probably the place where you'll het most ROI
I don't understand why. Working with hardware you're going to have to do various things with `unsafe`. Interfacing to C (the rest of the kernel) you'll have to be using `unsafe`. In my mind, the reasoning for rust in this situation seems flawed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be. Mostly because while Zig is better than C, it doesn't really provide all that much benefit, if you already have Rust.
I personally feel the Zig is a much better fit to the kernel. It's C interoperability is far better than Rust's, it has a lower barrier to entry for existing C devs and it doesn't have the constraints the Rust does. All whilst still bringing a lot of the advantages. ...to the extent I could see it pushing Rust out of the kernel in the long run. Rust feels like a sledgehammer to me where the kernel is concerned. It's…
Zig, for all its ergonomic benefits, doesn’t make memory management safe like Rust does.
I kind of doubt the Linux maintainers would want to introduce a third language to the codebase.
And it seems unlikely they’d go through all the effort of porting safer Rust code into less safe Zig code just for ergonomics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wrote their own language (C) too. They invented a new language because the current crop of languages didn't suit their needs. Your argument ignores the parts of history that are inconvenient and highlights the ones that you think support it.
You mean as in "having fun"? "Although we entertained occasional thoughts about implementing one of the major languages of the time like Fortran, PL/I, or Algol 68, such a project seemed hopelessly large for our resources: much simpler and smaller tools were called for. All these languages influenced our work, but it was more fun to do things on our own." -- https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/chis…