3 ms·
History does not seem to agree with you. There were memory safe(er) languages before Rust existed, and OSes written in those languages. Neither became popular
by kjs3 3y ago
History does not seem to agree with you. There were memory safe(er) languages before Rust existed, and OSes written in those languages. Neither became popular.
- eyelidlessness 3y agoThat doesn’t make it a non-feature, necessarily. Lots of features in lots of software fail to drive that software’s success.
- orange_fritter 3y agoHonestly this whole thread is very pedantic. Popularity doesn't define a feature, and the writer probably just plucked the word "feature" from a few not-great options. Either way, general grumpiness about Rust being used to write an OS may be a reaction to the hype, but plenty of people have expressed interest in an OS written in Rust, if not for any other purpose than to challenge Rust's basic claims.
- pornel 3y agoHistorically, there has been a bigger trade-off between safety and performance, and performance has been much more important. Besides, there are many many factors determining successes of OSes, often far removed from quality of the software itself (1986 AmigaOS had GUI and multitasking, and still lost to MS-DOS and Windows 3.1).