4 ms·

> I understand the backlash especially veterans who have put in their efforts on the kernel and have no wish to learn Rust. I am sure there are plenty of Rust p

by simjnd 2y ago

> I understand the backlash especially veterans who have put in their efforts on the kernel and have no wish to learn Rust. I am sure there are plenty of Rust people throwing their world views opinions yet barely wrote anything decent in C, if at all. If you watch the video Wedson linked to in his email, you will see a fragment of the typical experience of a Linux Rust kernel maintainer. Rust in the kernel does not and has never meant C developers will have to learn Rust, but despite that fact a lot of C kernel developers who have been doing an insane amount of gatekeeping, deliberately treating Rust as a second-class citizen out of spite. Asahi Lina who has written the kernel part of the Apple M-series GPU driver in Rust has had a LOT to say about what interacting with kernel developers have been like: https://vt.social/@lina/113045455229442533 https://vt.social/@lina/113045455229442533

masfoobar 2y ago
I have watched the video. I am not ignoring or denying there isn't individuals throwing their toys out of the pram when follow-up discussions should remain respectful and mature. On one end, I get it. Linux kernel is a BIG project. I assume it is still the biggest Free/Open Source project today. Many developers involved in this project genuinely care about it. These big projects will NOT go down well if a release contains bugs. By having another language in the equation is likely to cause tension especially code breakages. Now, these guys need to learn Rust! When a language like Rust is given a lot of push today I can understand their anger when it can feel like it is pushed into the kernel too soon too quickly. I am not defending these guys - I am just saying I get it. However, on the other end, I do not want to see a project contain over the top reactions when it is not needed. The guy in the video could have handled his responses better and more professionally. Maybe (and I am assuming, here) a number of Linux kernel developers that behave like this may not have worked in a corporate environment, and have not learned that certain behaviours are not acceptable. Probably have not been a team lead in a project, either. They might be effing good programmers, tho! That is an assumption, of course. I could say the same thing about Linus, as his responses could/should be handled better over the lifetime of the Linux kernel. Of course, the kernel is HIS BABY and I understand if he gets annoyed reviewing CRAP code.
- cholantesh 2y ago
  >Now, these guys need to learn Rust I think the key point of contention here is that the Rust maintainers are insisting this isn't the case. For them, they retain oversight on the Rust bindings, not the C components they reference. What they expect is that when a breaking change happens, they are able to reach out to maintainers of the C component and get documentation, issue threads, etc that might help them resolve those issues. For Ts'o, maybe the concern is that producing the docs would be onerous, or that in reality they may have to provide more than the minimum expected level of support. I don't personally think the former is a reasonable complaint. I think the latter has grounds for discussion and compromise. And if he is passionate about the kernel as a project, he should introspect about how likely it is that the community will retain or expand its strength as he throws loud public tantrums voluntary contributions to it.
eadmund 2y ago
> Rust in the kernel does not and has never meant C developers will have to learn Rust That seems incorrect. If I am writing software which interacts with a component, then I need to be able to read it to understand what it’s doing. So if a software system includes Rust, then developers of the system will need to at least be able to read it. That’s not saying anything bad about Rust, at all: it’s just a property of developing in a shared codebase. Full disclosure: I dislike C but can read it, and I cannot read Rust. Rust sounds like it really is an improvement over C in many ways, but it does seem to suffer from some social problems. As a Lisp user, I can sympathise.
francasso 2y ago
If a big chunk of a project is written in a language, you end up having to learn that language, unless you deal only with a very isolated piece. I don't see how this case would be different.

by simjnd 2y ago

masfoobar 2y ago

I have watched the video. I am not ignoring or denying there isn't individuals throwing their toys out of the pram when follow-up discussions should remain respectful and mature. On one end, I get it. Linux kernel is a BIG project. I assume it is still the biggest Free/Open Source project today. Many developers involved in this project genuinely care about it. These big projects will NOT go down well if a release contains bugs. By having another language in the equation is likely to cause tension especially code breakages. Now, these guys need to learn Rust! When a language like Rust is given a lot of push today I can understand their anger when it can feel like it is pushed into the kernel too soon too quickly. I am not defending these guys - I am just saying I get it. However, on the other end, I do not want to see a project contain over the top reactions when it is not needed. The guy in the video could have handled his responses better and more professionally. Maybe (and I am assuming, here) a number of Linux kernel developers that behave like this may not have worked in a corporate environment, and have not learned that certain behaviours are not acceptable. Probably have not been a team lead in a project, either. They might be effing good programmers, tho! That is an assumption, of course. I could say the same thing about Linus, as his responses could/should be handled better over the lifetime of the Linux kernel. Of course, the kernel is HIS BABY and I understand if he gets annoyed reviewing CRAP code.

cholantesh 2y ago
>Now, these guys need to learn Rust I think the key point of contention here is that the Rust maintainers are insisting this isn't the case. For them, they retain oversight on the Rust bindings, not the C components they reference. What they expect is that when a breaking change happens, they are able to reach out to maintainers of the C component and get documentation, issue threads, etc that might help them resolve those issues. For Ts'o, maybe the concern is that producing the docs would be onerous, or that in reality they may have to provide more than the minimum expected level of support. I don't personally think the former is a reasonable complaint. I think the latter has grounds for discussion and compromise. And if he is passionate about the kernel as a project, he should introspect about how likely it is that the community will retain or expand its strength as he throws loud public tantrums voluntary contributions to it.

eadmund 2y ago

> Rust in the kernel does not and has never meant C developers will have to learn Rust That seems incorrect. If I am writing software which interacts with a component, then I need to be able to read it to understand what it’s doing. So if a software system includes Rust, then developers of the system will need to at least be able to read it. That’s not saying anything bad about Rust, at all: it’s just a property of developing in a shared codebase. Full disclosure: I dislike C but can read it, and I cannot read Rust. Rust sounds like it really is an improvement over C in many ways, but it does seem to suffer from some social problems. As a Lisp user, I can sympathise.

francasso 2y ago

If a big chunk of a project is written in a language, you end up having to learn that language, unless you deal only with a very isolated piece. I don't see how this case would be different.