4 ms·

Rust Switching to a more modern topic, the introduction of the Rust language into Linux, Torvalds is disappointed that its adoption isn't going faster. "I was

by nabla9 2y ago

Rust Switching to a more modern topic, the introduction of the Rust language into Linux, Torvalds is disappointed that its adoption isn't going faster. "I was expecting updates to be faster, but part of the problem is that old-time kernel developers are used to C and don't know Rust. They're not exactly excited about having to learn a new language that is, in some respects, very different. So there's been some pushback on Rust." On top of that, Torvalds commented, "Another reason has been the Rust infrastructure itself has not been super stable." AI "When AI came in, it was wonderful, because Nvidia got much more involved in the kernel. Nvidia went from being on my list of companies who are not good to my list of companies who are doing really good work."

aeurielesn 2y ago
IMHO, as a C developer, I love Rust's features but the syntax is terrible.
- andrewmcwatters 2y ago
  Another developer here who writes in C and C++, same. I think a lot of people have this complaint. I'm sad about it because what Rust provides in principle sounds great. The language is hideous though, and I really don't want to write anything in it.
  - dmm 2y ago
    What things are hideous about it and what would you rather it look like?
    - andrewmcwatters 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - kranuckle 2y ago
        [dead]
    - flohofwoe 2y ago
      That video snippet which was posted by that former Rust/Linux maintainer has an excellent example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1529&v=WiPp9YEBV0Q&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1529&v=WiPp9YEBV0Q&feature=y... The return type of that get_or_create_inode() function is: Result<Either<ARef<INode<T>>, inode::New<T>>> I'd say that's a pretty good example for 'hideous'. It looks like some of the worst C++ code I've seen and then quickly tried to forget. If stuff like this ends up in the Linux kernel I would be pissed too as a Linux kernel greybeard.
      - steveklabnik 2y ago
        I agree that it could maybe use some new types, but it also does kinda get to the heart of this: I’ve never used this kernel API before, but I can say “oh, this function may error out, but if it doesn’t, it gives me either a new inode or a reference (I’m assuming that’s what ARef is) to an existing one. That’s a lot of valuable information, at a glance.
        flohofwoe 2y ago
        > That’s a lot of valuable information, at a glance ...if you know how to decode it. That example looks like one of those C++ SFINAE hacks, e.g. trying to bend the template/generics syntax beyond what it was designed for. If Rust APIs want to go that way (of overly expressive strong typing) then Rust really should offer a better syntax for describing such types. But it's not even clear to me if such strongly typed APIs are even a good idea. From my experience in C++ and (especially) Typescript with similar APIs, it's a PITA to work with in real world projects, and on both sides of the API.
        steveklabnik 2y ago
        I mean, it’s very straightforward generics. There’s just nesting, each of these types has one or two parameters and that’s it. I’m not sure there’s a simpler way of communicating the same thing. But I also think that I wouldn’t design an API that works like this in Rust natively; this is adapting a signature from C rather than doing the API you’d want if you were creating something from whole cloth. I also believe that static types are very different based on the language; I’d rather write Ruby than Java, but I’d rather write Rust than Ruby. More advanced type systems tend to actually pull their weight, whereas simpler ones don’t give enough juice for the squeeze, IMHO.
- zozbot234 2y ago
  Yup, Rust syntax is just the worst - except for all the other syntax proposals that have been made over time: https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html
  - still_grokking 2y ago
    Imho quite bad example. Not even one tubo-fish. No multiple lines of `where` clauses. No (dyn) trait impl. Not even a lambda! On top of that Rust's syntax is full of noise. Curly braces, semicolons, ugly angel brackets, `::` instead of points for namespaces, etc. Rust is a quite good language on the technical level. But the surface syntax is really ugly.

by nabla9 2y ago

aeurielesn 2y ago

IMHO, as a C developer, I love Rust's features but the syntax is terrible.

andrewmcwatters 2y ago
Another developer here who writes in C and C++, same. I think a lot of people have this complaint. I'm sad about it because what Rust provides in principle sounds great. The language is hideous though, and I really don't want to write anything in it.
- dmm 2y ago
  What things are hideous about it and what would you rather it look like?
  - andrewmcwatters 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - kranuckle 2y ago
      [dead]
  - flohofwoe 2y ago
    That video snippet which was posted by that former Rust/Linux maintainer has an excellent example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1529&v=WiPp9YEBV0Q&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1529&v=WiPp9YEBV0Q&feature=y... The return type of that get_or_create_inode() function is: Result<Either<ARef<INode<T>>, inode::New<T>>> I'd say that's a pretty good example for 'hideous'. It looks like some of the worst C++ code I've seen and then quickly tried to forget. If stuff like this ends up in the Linux kernel I would be pissed too as a Linux kernel greybeard.
    - steveklabnik 2y ago
      I agree that it could maybe use some new types, but it also does kinda get to the heart of this: I’ve never used this kernel API before, but I can say “oh, this function may error out, but if it doesn’t, it gives me either a new inode or a reference (I’m assuming that’s what ARef is) to an existing one. That’s a lot of valuable information, at a glance.
      - flohofwoe 2y ago
        > That’s a lot of valuable information, at a glance ...if you know how to decode it. That example looks like one of those C++ SFINAE hacks, e.g. trying to bend the template/generics syntax beyond what it was designed for. If Rust APIs want to go that way (of overly expressive strong typing) then Rust really should offer a better syntax for describing such types. But it's not even clear to me if such strongly typed APIs are even a good idea. From my experience in C++ and (especially) Typescript with similar APIs, it's a PITA to work with in real world projects, and on both sides of the API.
        steveklabnik 2y ago
        I mean, it’s very straightforward generics. There’s just nesting, each of these types has one or two parameters and that’s it. I’m not sure there’s a simpler way of communicating the same thing. But I also think that I wouldn’t design an API that works like this in Rust natively; this is adapting a signature from C rather than doing the API you’d want if you were creating something from whole cloth. I also believe that static types are very different based on the language; I’d rather write Ruby than Java, but I’d rather write Rust than Ruby. More advanced type systems tend to actually pull their weight, whereas simpler ones don’t give enough juice for the squeeze, IMHO.
zozbot234 2y ago
Yup, Rust syntax is just the worst - except for all the other syntax proposals that have been made over time: https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html
- still_grokking 2y ago
  Imho quite bad example. Not even one tubo-fish. No multiple lines of `where` clauses. No (dyn) trait impl. Not even a lambda! On top of that Rust's syntax is full of noise. Curly braces, semicolons, ugly angel brackets, `::` instead of points for namespaces, etc. Rust is a quite good language on the technical level. But the surface syntax is really ugly.