5 ms·
If you spend time reading the article, you can agree or disagree with his choices, but he provides several reasons for why he chose to rewrite in Rust over afte
by dabedee 3y ago
If you spend time reading the article, you can agree or disagree with his choices, but he provides several reasons for why he chose to rewrite in Rust over after the initial project was written in C:
"At that moment, I decided to switch to Rust (my first project in this language), which represented several advantages:
- Restart the project from the beginning, using lessons learned from previous mistakes
- Be a bit more innovative than just writing a Linux-like kernel in C. After all, just use Linux at that point
- Use the safety of the Rust language to leverage some difficulty of kernel programming. Using Rust’s typing system allows to shift some responsibility over memory safety from the programmer to the compiler."
Unfortunately, your comment doesn't add anything to the conversation and distracts from the interesting project being presented.
- vanderZwan 3y agoAlso, there's the implicit "I'm doing this to learn and have fun with a personal project" aspect which seems valid
- DaveFlater 3y agoThat's pure Rust evangelism. As devs we are responsible for what we send out into the world. A schism in the Linux kernel would be bad.
- graphe 3y agoWhy? There are multiple kernel versons with different support. Android had and might still have their own kernel version, and I didn't notice anything bad. It's just another Unix implication.
- wongarsu 3y agoLinux started out as a hobby project that widened the schism in the Unix world. Yet things turned out fine
- vanderZwan 3y agoI have trouble not reading this as "forks are bad", which seems to be missing the point of libre software a bit. Am I missing some nuance lost in the brevity of two sentences?
- DaveFlater 3y agoForks are not inherently good or bad but can seriously muck up an ecosystem if they are not well-justified. Mucking up the Linux ecosystem would be BAD.