4 ms·

I think I addressed this in the footnote: > There are some other arguable benefits which mainly boil down to finding Rust to have a superior language design to

I think I addressed this in the footnote: > There are some other arguable benefits which mainly boil down to finding Rust to have a superior language design to C or to be more enjoyable to use. These are subjective and generally are not the most important traits a kernel hacker has to consider when choosing a language, so I’m leaving them aside for now. I agree that these features are nice; I added many of them to my own language and take advantage of them in my kernel. But they are a secondary concern to the constraints of the kernel's problem space and the conservatism required of a project like Linux.

iudqnolq 4y ago
In general, you seem to be arguing kernel programming shouldn't be nice. Why wouldn't things being easier lead to better results, all else equal?
- ddevault 4y ago
  Because all things are not equal, unfortunately. Per the article: > As Linus recently put it, “kernel needs trump any Rust needs”. The kernel is simply not an environment which will bend to accommodate a language; it must go the other way around.
  - varajelle 4y ago
    What are these "rust needs" that are incompatible with "kernel needs"? Stuff like faillible memory allocations are being worked and rust doesn't have so many needs by itself.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      A single person argued to Linus a broad amount of the kernel's internal API should be painstakingly refactored to be philosophically rust-y. Linus said no way, that's not what we're doing here. Luckily, that's not what the Rust for Linux project has been doing either.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    If Linus had said "rust can't accommodate the idea kernel needs nead to trump rust needs", I'd buy what you're saying. That line came from Linus educating a single wrong member of the rust community. It only shows that person wasn't using rust in a way that accommodated kernel needs, not that it's impossible or even difficult to do so.

iudqnolq 4y ago

In general, you seem to be arguing kernel programming shouldn't be nice. Why wouldn't things being easier lead to better results, all else equal?

ddevault 4y ago
Because all things are not equal, unfortunately. Per the article: > As Linus recently put it, “kernel needs trump any Rust needs”. The kernel is simply not an environment which will bend to accommodate a language; it must go the other way around.
- varajelle 4y ago
  What are these "rust needs" that are incompatible with "kernel needs"? Stuff like faillible memory allocations are being worked and rust doesn't have so many needs by itself.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    A single person argued to Linus a broad amount of the kernel's internal API should be painstakingly refactored to be philosophically rust-y. Linus said no way, that's not what we're doing here. Luckily, that's not what the Rust for Linux project has been doing either.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  If Linus had said "rust can't accommodate the idea kernel needs nead to trump rust needs", I'd buy what you're saying. That line came from Linus educating a single wrong member of the rust community. It only shows that person wasn't using rust in a way that accommodated kernel needs, not that it's impossible or even difficult to do so.