3 ms·
There is no doubt a lot of work here, but C <-> Rust interoperability is a lot cleaner than C++ <-> Rust. And for what it's worth, for almost all langauges C <
by gpm 6y ago
There is no doubt a lot of work here, but C <-> Rust interoperability is a lot cleaner than C++ <-> Rust.
And for what it's worth, for almost all langauges C <-> X interoperability is a lot cleaner than C++ <-> X. Since almost all languages (including rust) "speak C", both in terms of compiler support and and being able to map every important C concept to a concept in their language. The same isn't true with C++.
One thing to worry about with adding any language (including rust) to the kernel, is that the next good looking language will probably interoperate well with C and not interoperate well with Rust. So there is a much higher cost the second time you try to add a language.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago> One thing to worry about with adding any language (including rust) to the kernel, is that the next good looking language will probably interoperate well with C and not interoperate well with Rust. So there is a much higher cost the second time you try to add a language. This is something that Rust is acutely aware of. There have been many discussions about the idea of a higher-level "safe ABI", such that languages with notions like counted strings or bounded buffers could interoperate with each other without having to go by way of an unsafe C interface.
- mlindner 6y agoIs there any work currently happening on this. I think this would be huge for many languages so we can finally graduate past the era of C ABI.