6 ms·

Rust in core Linux would probably be a horrible idea, given all the complexities of the language. For drivers it could be fine. But so could many other langua

Rust in core Linux would probably be a horrible idea, given all the complexities of the language. For drivers it could be fine. But so could many other languages. So why Rust?

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
This is HN.... every day there are articles about "$(this old existing software) written in $(language of the week)" $(language of the week) changes, and people continue using the old software, written in c/c++/...
- kobalsky 5y ago
  except c++ is not welcome on the linux kernel. torvalds said recently: “Probably next year, we’ll start seeing some first intrepid modules being written in Rust, and maybe being integrated in the mainline kernel.” [1] the rust community is a bit over-excited, but if you can look past that, there's substance in the hype. [1] https://thenewstack.io/linus-torvalds-on-community-rust-and-linuxs-longevity/ https://thenewstack.io/linus-torvalds-on-community-rust-and-...
- pdimitar 5y ago
  > $(language of the week) Rust is 10 years old. See, such knee-jerk reactions are exactly why many people have trouble taking the anti-Rust arguers seriously. It's like you people defend religion or something. How about we stick to facts?
adwn 5y ago
> Rust in core Linux would probably be a horrible idea, given all the complexities of the language. C is a very complex language as well. It's just that when you're not aware of all the complexities in Rust, the compiler will refuse to compile; in C, you'll get a security vulnerability or weird crashes at runtime. Yes, this is a generalization, but only slightly. C is deceptively simple – its complexities are well hidden.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Rust is complex, and C's complexity is hidden - if it weren't hidden, C would be less complex. But, does that in turn make C more complex? It definitely makes it less safe. But I don't know if it automatically makes it more complex.
  - adwn 5y ago
    > C's complexity is hidden - if it weren't hidden, C would be less complex. If it weren't hidden, it would be a different language. Would that language be less complex? That depends on what that language would look like. > But, does that in turn make C more complex? More complex than what? I'm not saying that C is more or less complex than Rust – what I'm saying is that C is not simple – its considerable complexity isn't visible at first glance, but it's there.
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  > Yes, this is a generalization, but only slightly Sounds like a total hand-wave to me. Can you provide examples of "well hidden" complexities?
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    Manipulating pointers as numbers. And addressing arrays out of bounds.
    - phendrenad2 5y ago
      Manipulating pointers as numbers (using the ++ operator for instance) is actually really simple, but most people do a bad job of explaining it.
      - pdimitar 5y ago
        You are severely missing the point. Of course it's simple. Many things are simple on their face. Until one rainy day you're slightly distracted and make a mistake. Be honest with yourself: you NEVER made a mistake that made you facepalm sometime in the future? Not once inn your life? People just refuse to believe they can make mistakes. That's why those discussions are impossible to win; they are about personal maturity and not about programming prowess. On one side you have the people confidently saying their famous last words: "it's simple, you all dumb or something?" and on the other you have those that are like "I know I can screw up even if I'm the best ever so let me use a language that will catch part of my mistakes". But yeah, the latter group can never convince the former. You all just repeat the same things every time and always miss the forest for a single tree. Very frustrating.

Rust in core Linux would probably be a horrible idea, given all the complexities of the language. For drivers it could be fine. But so could many other languages. So why Rust?

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

This is HN.... every day there are articles about "$(this old existing software) written in $(language of the week)" $(language of the week) changes, and people continue using the old software, written in c/c++/...

kobalsky 5y ago
except c++ is not welcome on the linux kernel. torvalds said recently: “Probably next year, we’ll start seeing some first intrepid modules being written in Rust, and maybe being integrated in the mainline kernel.” [1] the rust community is a bit over-excited, but if you can look past that, there's substance in the hype. [1] https://thenewstack.io/linus-torvalds-on-community-rust-and-linuxs-longevity/ https://thenewstack.io/linus-torvalds-on-community-rust-and-...
pdimitar 5y ago
> $(language of the week) Rust is 10 years old. See, such knee-jerk reactions are exactly why many people have trouble taking the anti-Rust arguers seriously. It's like you people defend religion or something. How about we stick to facts?

adwn 5y ago

> Rust in core Linux would probably be a horrible idea, given all the complexities of the language. C is a very complex language as well. It's just that when you're not aware of all the complexities in Rust, the compiler will refuse to compile; in C, you'll get a security vulnerability or weird crashes at runtime. Yes, this is a generalization, but only slightly. C is deceptively simple – its complexities are well hidden.

bcrosby95 5y ago
Rust is complex, and C's complexity is hidden - if it weren't hidden, C would be less complex. But, does that in turn make C more complex? It definitely makes it less safe. But I don't know if it automatically makes it more complex.
- adwn 5y ago
  > C's complexity is hidden - if it weren't hidden, C would be less complex. If it weren't hidden, it would be a different language. Would that language be less complex? That depends on what that language would look like. > But, does that in turn make C more complex? More complex than what? I'm not saying that C is more or less complex than Rust – what I'm saying is that C is not simple – its considerable complexity isn't visible at first glance, but it's there.
phendrenad2 5y ago
> Yes, this is a generalization, but only slightly Sounds like a total hand-wave to me. Can you provide examples of "well hidden" complexities?
- pdimitar 5y ago
  Manipulating pointers as numbers. And addressing arrays out of bounds.
  - phendrenad2 5y ago
    Manipulating pointers as numbers (using the ++ operator for instance) is actually really simple, but most people do a bad job of explaining it.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      You are severely missing the point. Of course it's simple. Many things are simple on their face. Until one rainy day you're slightly distracted and make a mistake. Be honest with yourself: you NEVER made a mistake that made you facepalm sometime in the future? Not once inn your life? People just refuse to believe they can make mistakes. That's why those discussions are impossible to win; they are about personal maturity and not about programming prowess. On one side you have the people confidently saying their famous last words: "it's simple, you all dumb or something?" and on the other you have those that are like "I know I can screw up even if I'm the best ever so let me use a language that will catch part of my mistakes". But yeah, the latter group can never convince the former. You all just repeat the same things every time and always miss the forest for a single tree. Very frustrating.