4 ms·

> "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 yo

> "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
    > You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it. I think it's a fair characterization of what was said. Feel free, as everyone is, to read the entire thread again. I'm not a journalist. You have the primary source at your finger tips! > Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees? You're looking at the Rust reference right? https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-unde...
    - topspin 4y ago
      > You're looking at the Rust reference right? Not normative, as stated here[1], linked from the page you cite. [1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/index.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/index.html
      - mustache_kimono 4y ago
        Okay? Do you think you have you quibbled enough? To be clear, I still think it's fine for Wedson to inform him even if the document is not a normative reference/specification? Even if these are just the expectations of API/Rust users?
        topspin 4y ago
        > the expectations of API/Rust users? Pointing out whatever those are is fine. Linus pointing out the expectations of the Linux kernel is fine too, and no amount of invoking fictional formalisms trumps them.
        mustache_kimono 4y ago
        I 100% agree. And if you read my comments you'd realize, I agree with Linus on the substance. I think the way he said it was dick-ish. That's it!
    - 4y ago

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
  > You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it. I think it's a fair characterization of what was said. Feel free, as everyone is, to read the entire thread again. I'm not a journalist. You have the primary source at your finger tips! > Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees? You're looking at the Rust reference right? https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-unde...
  - topspin 4y ago
    > You're looking at the Rust reference right? Not normative, as stated here[1], linked from the page you cite. [1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/index.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/index.html
    - mustache_kimono 4y ago
      Okay? Do you think you have you quibbled enough? To be clear, I still think it's fine for Wedson to inform him even if the document is not a normative reference/specification? Even if these are just the expectations of API/Rust users?
      - topspin 4y ago
        > the expectations of API/Rust users? Pointing out whatever those are is fine. Linus pointing out the expectations of the Linux kernel is fine too, and no amount of invoking fictional formalisms trumps them.
        mustache_kimono 4y ago
        I 100% agree. And if you read my comments you'd realize, I agree with Linus on the substance. I think the way he said it was dick-ish. That's it!
  - 4y ago