4 ms·

It's sad that a bunch of legit criticism around Rust in the kernel (like around tooling and maintenance burden if nothing else) probably won't lead to actual im

It's sad that a bunch of legit criticism around Rust in the kernel (like around tooling and maintenance burden if nothing else) probably won't lead to actual improvements being made because a tiny handful of people can't help themselves but dial up their condescension up to eleven and derail any attempt at productive discussion. On the other hand, I continue to be amused by arguments along the lines of "I'd already made up my mind that Rust is bad, but then I actually looked at some Rust code and realized it doesn't use C syntax, and now I'm even more upset"...

pas 5y ago
> but dial up their condescension up to eleven Sorry, what does this mean exactly? Could you come up with a hypothetical sentence that is like this? Thanks!
- tempest_ 5y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o
- yarg 5y ago
  There's a little bit of snark that results from any criticism of the suitability of Rust and its ecosystem for integration into the kernel. Rust's tooling isn't quite as mature as it could be, and it achieves its advanced capabilities and performance by eschewing a runtime (which would make it unacceptable) in favour of labourious compilation. The snark to me seems unnecessary; a more even headed discussion would acknowledge the limitations and focus instead on what can and will be improved or mitigated and what compromises are acceptable. The tooling will mature with time, panics will be mitigated, and the compile time performance is often a sacrifice worth making for the sake of the safety provided.
- ben0x539 5y ago
  I don't want to call anyone out by making specific examples. I'm talking about comments that in their wording presuppose agreement that the person you're talking to doesn't know what they're doing, or the thing you're talking about is misguided and deserves to be sabotaged. Implications like that may very well be correct, but as always, not sticking to the technical aspects of the subject makes it harder to get anything done.

pas 5y ago

> but dial up their condescension up to eleven Sorry, what does this mean exactly? Could you come up with a hypothetical sentence that is like this? Thanks!

tempest_ 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o
yarg 5y ago
There's a little bit of snark that results from any criticism of the suitability of Rust and its ecosystem for integration into the kernel. Rust's tooling isn't quite as mature as it could be, and it achieves its advanced capabilities and performance by eschewing a runtime (which would make it unacceptable) in favour of labourious compilation. The snark to me seems unnecessary; a more even headed discussion would acknowledge the limitations and focus instead on what can and will be improved or mitigated and what compromises are acceptable. The tooling will mature with time, panics will be mitigated, and the compile time performance is often a sacrifice worth making for the sake of the safety provided.
ben0x539 5y ago
I don't want to call anyone out by making specific examples. I'm talking about comments that in their wording presuppose agreement that the person you're talking to doesn't know what they're doing, or the thing you're talking about is misguided and deserves to be sabotaged. Implications like that may very well be correct, but as always, not sticking to the technical aspects of the subject makes it harder to get anything done.