3 ms·
I can't see how you could say C is dead when there isn't really anything that can replace it. I'll take it as dead when the Linux kernel, or it's futuristic re
by gravypod 10y ago
I can't see how you could say C is dead when there isn't really anything that can replace it.
I'll take it as dead when the Linux kernel, or it's futuristic replacement, is written in something other then C.
If you are talking about at the user-space level, then yes I can see that. But you shouldn't assume your single use case, higher level user space apps, is the only use case.
- pcwalton 10y agoIn what way, specifically, is Rust unsuitable for building a kernel? There's no argument that the Linux kernel is currently written in C. But that doesn't prove that nothing exists that can replace C.
- z92 10y agoWe can't say if Rust is a suitable replacement unless a a team tries to write a kernel in Rust, and then comes up with a comparative result. Right now C is only the tried and true solution. The rest are possibilities only.
- pcwalton 10y agoThere are two ways to interpret your post. The first is "there's no kernel written in Rust that is as complete as Linux". The second is "Rust is unsuitable for a kernel". The first interpretation is obvious and completely uninteresting; the second is something you haven't supported at all.
- mveety 10y agoPeople are writing a kernel in rust[0], and a pretty good unix-like at that. I don't like rust, but it's a fine language for that and in general. [0] http://www.redox-os.org/ http://www.redox-os.org/
- gravypod 10y agoWell if you can implement a kernel that does everything that Linux does, and is entirely backwards compatible, then I'll say "ok, the reign of C is over". Till then, C is going no where.