3 ms·

> Already parts of the Linux kernel as well as Windows are being written in Rust, so if it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for those bunch of C

> Already parts of the Linux kernel as well as Windows are being written in Rust, so if it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for those bunch of C experts. The C experts I was referring to are the subsystem maintainers and none of them are currently working on migrating to Rust AFAIK. So far the work in Linux with Rust has been a few driver rewrites. Keep in mind that there are subsystems like eBPF, io_uring, etc. that are under rapid development and are completely in C. I think if you really believe that kernel code should be written in Rust, you should start submitting patches instead of telling people that they have some sort of moral obligation to use Rust when you aren't the one that has to do any of the work.

dcow 3y ago
You aren't being charitable. Please stop fussing it's rather immature. People have addressed your points, please actually respond to theirs. It's not helpful to keep saying "look there still some people writing C" and use that as an argument for how C has somehow solved the problem where C programers regardless of how good they are ultimately write bugs that lead to takeover of the program counter. Rust makes the world better. If you don't want to pay the semantic price of that then fine, but it means you're okay with still writing horrible bugs. Some of us aren't. I promise Rust's semantics are better than C++ even though Rust has its rough edges and could be improved. What would be helpful to your cause is to mention the examples of people starting to add tooling to C to solve problems people are solving with Rust, but without the semantic price of Rust.