6 ms·

Heck no! And I can't imagine anyone thinking I was? The threat is pretty clear? "If Rust people don't get this, we will have to part ways." This is an ultima

Heck no! And I can't imagine anyone thinking I was? The threat is pretty clear? "If Rust people don't get this, we will have to part ways." This is an ultimatum? It's crazy girlfriend/boyfriend material? It's ridiculous after one contributor tries something that Linus thinks won't work in the kernel. Ridiculous. Just say no. The slander as well? "Rust’s community, in aggregate, have developed a reputation." And you know what? The C/C++/Zig/Nim/Haskell/Clojure communities have developed a reputation too, but, gosh, I don't talk about it because I know labeling groups isn't helpful/is completely non-technical.

sidlls 4y ago
The difference is these communities don’t have advocates spamming every technical thing they can find crapping on everyone else and proclaiming their favored language/tech to be indisputably superior in every case.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  If you don't think the Rust "community" receives the same sort of spam arguments from anti-Rust folks, then you're kidding yourself. And, yes, I completely understand that such arguments are super annoying. But the wrong response in my view is to answer with another stupid argument ("The Rust community is the problem.") Was Wedson acting in an untoward way here that in some way exemplifies something significant about the Rust community? No, not really. So, yeah, I think your comment above is a pointless low blow, cheap shot, an excuse to act nasty about some super annoying Rust comment you probably read months ago. And it just sounds like whining to me.
- V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
  Extraordinary claims ought to be supported by extraordinary evidence. Those are some serious accusations you make.
topspin 4y ago
> "If Rust people don't get this, we will have to part ways." What are you quoting? I don't see this anywhere in the thread. The nearest I see is: If you cannot get over the fact that the kernel may have other requirements that trump any language standards, we really can't work together. A reasonable, politely delivered, statement directed to an individual as opposed to Rust. It was in response to this rather cringy bit of lecturing: No one is talking about absolute safety guarantees. I am talking about specific ones that Rust makes: these are well-documented and formally defined. Rust has no formal language specification yet. It's still "an area of research," to paraphrase what is said when the question is asked. No defined memory model either; from the current Rust reference: Rust does not yet have a defined memory model. Various academics and industry professionals are working on various proposals, but for now, this is an under-defined place in the language. One could argue (not me; I'm far too pragmatic for such things) that Linus is being exceptionally generous in entertaining Rust in its current state.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  FWIW, I actually mostly agree with Linus. I was paraphrasing. I didn't want to write a page length comment, and won't here, but there were a few more instances of similar ultimatums (like "Or, you know, if you can't deal with the rules that the kernel requires, then just don't do kernel programming.") And all are similarly ridiculous/dickish. Really no need for such dramatic convulsions, Linus, where Wedson was simply trying to explain the API expectations of the Rust language. Re: the rest, I think you are conflating Rust's UB guarantees with a specified memory model.
  - topspin 4y ago
    > I was paraphrasing. You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it. > Rust's UB guarantees Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees? Rust doesn't have one as far as I know.
    - mustache_kimono 4y ago

sidlls 4y ago

The difference is these communities don’t have advocates spamming every technical thing they can find crapping on everyone else and proclaiming their favored language/tech to be indisputably superior in every case.

mustache_kimono 4y ago
If you don't think the Rust "community" receives the same sort of spam arguments from anti-Rust folks, then you're kidding yourself. And, yes, I completely understand that such arguments are super annoying. But the wrong response in my view is to answer with another stupid argument ("The Rust community is the problem.") Was Wedson acting in an untoward way here that in some way exemplifies something significant about the Rust community? No, not really. So, yeah, I think your comment above is a pointless low blow, cheap shot, an excuse to act nasty about some super annoying Rust comment you probably read months ago. And it just sounds like whining to me.
V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
Extraordinary claims ought to be supported by extraordinary evidence. Those are some serious accusations you make.

topspin 4y ago

> "If Rust people don't get this, we will have to part ways." What are you quoting? I don't see this anywhere in the thread. The nearest I see is: If you cannot get over the fact that the kernel may have other requirements that trump any language standards, we really can't work together. A reasonable, politely delivered, statement directed to an individual as opposed to Rust. It was in response to this rather cringy bit of lecturing: No one is talking about absolute safety guarantees. I am talking about specific ones that Rust makes: these are well-documented and formally defined. Rust has no formal language specification yet. It's still "an area of research," to paraphrase what is said when the question is asked. No defined memory model either; from the current Rust reference: Rust does not yet have a defined memory model. Various academics and industry professionals are working on various proposals, but for now, this is an under-defined place in the language. One could argue (not me; I'm far too pragmatic for such things) that Linus is being exceptionally generous in entertaining Rust in its current state.

mustache_kimono 4y ago
FWIW, I actually mostly agree with Linus. I was paraphrasing. I didn't want to write a page length comment, and won't here, but there were a few more instances of similar ultimatums (like "Or, you know, if you can't deal with the rules that the kernel requires, then just don't do kernel programming.") And all are similarly ridiculous/dickish. Really no need for such dramatic convulsions, Linus, where Wedson was simply trying to explain the API expectations of the Rust language. Re: the rest, I think you are conflating Rust's UB guarantees with a specified memory model.
- topspin 4y ago
  > I was paraphrasing. You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it. > Rust's UB guarantees Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees? Rust doesn't have one as far as I know.
  - mustache_kimono 4y ago