4 ms·

I'm not sure how this relates to the post, can you elaborate?

by elktea 4y ago

ziddoap 4y ago
One is a post about Rust in the Linux kernel, and the other is Linus talking about Rust in the Linux kernel on LKML. What would you like elaboration on? The relationship seems pretty clear to me?
bayindirh 4y ago
Many of the Rust "evangelists" thinks/behaves like Rust's guarantees are absolute and leads to absolutely unbreakable software by default, and advocate that the language is the silver bullet combining abilities of C, C++ (depending on application) without any of their downsides. When you hit a limitation you really need to implement in Rust, they say "Hey, there's unsafe{}, use that". Also, they advocate that unsafe{} is equal to C/C++ in programming freedom, which is again not. When they're reminded that reality is not like that, they get upset and defensive. This comment is a nice flag to remind this reality. I congratulate Rust for being what it is, but it's not a silver bullet and it's not the next C or C++. It's just a very nice programming language for various applications. Being all shiny-eyed doesn't work in CS or programming in general, and also hardware doesn't work like that (a deterministic, perfectly good behaving, spec-obeying magic box with some included smoke for higher performance).
- ladyanita22 4y ago
  > When you hit a limitation you really need to implement in Rust, they say "Hey, there's unsafe{}, use that". Also, they advocate that unsafe{} is equal to C/C++ in programming freedom, which is again not. I'm interested. How does rust unsafe give you less freedom than let's say c or cpp?
  - steveklabnik 4y ago
    Rust's unsafe still needs to uphold the rules of safe Rust. It's not a license to just do whatever you want. There are often ways to do whatever you want, but it's not as simple as "I have a raw pointer now let's goooooo." I'd describe it as different, not "less", but I wasn't the one who said it originally.
- pizza234 4y ago
  > Many of the Rust "evangelists" thinks/behaves like Rust's guarantees are absolute and leads to absolutely unbreakable software by default Can you point to (high-profile) evangelists that actually push this view? I think the people you refer to are a loud minority of developers who possibly don't even write professionally in Rust. I've never read or heard this position from experts.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    While the people I talk with are not high profile evangelists, all of them are using Rust in their professional life for work. Maybe the messaging should be clear, and hype should be better controlled from top to bottom, because I never talked with anyone who doesn't casts stones to C & C++ and badmouths it while saying that Rust is the one, and only, and the last savior we need. BTW, I'm not against Rust, but I don't use LLVM. I'm waiting gccrs to dive into the language.
    - pizza234 4y ago
      > because I never talked with anyone who doesn't casts stones to C & C++ and badmouths it while saying that Rust is the one, and only, and the last savior we need. I do definitely cast stones on C/++, especially considering that a C project I've rewritten in Rust uncovered several memory safety issues from the very first run. Another C project I've approached also showed C-specific issues from the very beginning. On the other hand, I don't define Rust and the savior and so on; to be specific, memory safety is a very serious issue, but not the only one, and memory safe languages solve a very serious issue, but not all the issues. Additionally, I think Rust is a niche language; other memory safe languages may be more productive for the majority of the use cases ("webcrap", like a famous software engineer described :)). Now you know one!
    - falkaer 4y ago
      I'm curious, why not use LLVM?
      - bayindirh 4y ago
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  >Many of the Rust "evangelists" thinks/behaves like Rust's guarantees are absolute and leads to absolutely unbreakable software by default, and advocate that the language is the silver bullet combining abilities of C, C++ (depending on application) without any of their downsides. Where are these people? I'm not doubting that they exist, but I've never come across one and I've been in the rust community for several years now.
- howinteresting 4y ago
  This is misunderstanding the point of unsafe. All memory-safe languages in existence have safe abstractions built around unsafe code. For example, most JavaScript runtimes are written in C++. The point of unsafe Rust is to be able to use the same language to write both safe and unsafe code. On the flip side, almost all C and C++ is unsafe code. The point of unsafe Rust is to be able to reserve brainpower for small subsets of code while having a relaxed posture towards most of it.

I'm not sure how this relates to the post, can you elaborate?

by elktea 4y ago

I'm not sure how this relates to the post, can you elaborate?

One is a post about Rust in the Linux kernel, and the other is Linus talking about Rust in the Linux kernel on LKML. What would you like elaboration on? The relationship seems pretty clear to me?

bayindirh 4y ago

Many of the Rust "evangelists" thinks/behaves like Rust's guarantees are absolute and leads to absolutely unbreakable software by default, and advocate that the language is the silver bullet combining abilities of C, C++ (depending on application) without any of their downsides. When you hit a limitation you really need to implement in Rust, they say "Hey, there's unsafe{}, use that". Also, they advocate that unsafe{} is equal to C/C++ in programming freedom, which is again not. When they're reminded that reality is not like that, they get upset and defensive. This comment is a nice flag to remind this reality. I congratulate Rust for being what it is, but it's not a silver bullet and it's not the next C or C++. It's just a very nice programming language for various applications. Being all shiny-eyed doesn't work in CS or programming in general, and also hardware doesn't work like that (a deterministic, perfectly good behaving, spec-obeying magic box with some included smoke for higher performance).

ladyanita22 4y ago
> When you hit a limitation you really need to implement in Rust, they say "Hey, there's unsafe{}, use that". Also, they advocate that unsafe{} is equal to C/C++ in programming freedom, which is again not. I'm interested. How does rust unsafe give you less freedom than let's say c or cpp?
- steveklabnik 4y ago
  Rust's unsafe still needs to uphold the rules of safe Rust. It's not a license to just do whatever you want. There are often ways to do whatever you want, but it's not as simple as "I have a raw pointer now let's goooooo." I'd describe it as different, not "less", but I wasn't the one who said it originally.
pizza234 4y ago
> Many of the Rust "evangelists" thinks/behaves like Rust's guarantees are absolute and leads to absolutely unbreakable software by default Can you point to (high-profile) evangelists that actually push this view? I think the people you refer to are a loud minority of developers who possibly don't even write professionally in Rust. I've never read or heard this position from experts.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  While the people I talk with are not high profile evangelists, all of them are using Rust in their professional life for work. Maybe the messaging should be clear, and hype should be better controlled from top to bottom, because I never talked with anyone who doesn't casts stones to C & C++ and badmouths it while saying that Rust is the one, and only, and the last savior we need. BTW, I'm not against Rust, but I don't use LLVM. I'm waiting gccrs to dive into the language.
  - pizza234 4y ago
    > because I never talked with anyone who doesn't casts stones to C & C++ and badmouths it while saying that Rust is the one, and only, and the last savior we need. I do definitely cast stones on C/++, especially considering that a C project I've rewritten in Rust uncovered several memory safety issues from the very first run. Another C project I've approached also showed C-specific issues from the very beginning. On the other hand, I don't define Rust and the savior and so on; to be specific, memory safety is a very serious issue, but not the only one, and memory safe languages solve a very serious issue, but not all the issues. Additionally, I think Rust is a niche language; other memory safe languages may be more productive for the majority of the use cases ("webcrap", like a famous software engineer described :)). Now you know one!
  - falkaer 4y ago
    I'm curious, why not use LLVM?
    - bayindirh 4y ago
sebzim4500 4y ago
>Many of the Rust "evangelists" thinks/behaves like Rust's guarantees are absolute and leads to absolutely unbreakable software by default, and advocate that the language is the silver bullet combining abilities of C, C++ (depending on application) without any of their downsides. Where are these people? I'm not doubting that they exist, but I've never come across one and I've been in the rust community for several years now.
howinteresting 4y ago
This is misunderstanding the point of unsafe. All memory-safe languages in existence have safe abstractions built around unsafe code. For example, most JavaScript runtimes are written in C++. The point of unsafe Rust is to be able to use the same language to write both safe and unsafe code. On the flip side, almost all C and C++ is unsafe code. The point of unsafe Rust is to be able to reserve brainpower for small subsets of code while having a relaxed posture towards most of it.