5 ms·
> and to reiterate, no one is trying force anyone else to learn Rust nor prevent refactorings of C code I have no dog in this race, but basic logic says if the
by jmull 2y ago
> and to reiterate, no one is trying force
anyone else to learn Rust nor prevent refactorings of C code
I have no dog in this race, but basic logic says if the linux kernel contains rust code, then a linux kernel dev will either need to learn rust or avoid doing things that require changes to those parts of the code.
I don’t know how you can wave this away as “technical nonsense”.
- steveklabnik 2y agoBecause if they do something that requires changes to the Rust code, the Rust for Linux folks will take care of it for them. This has been explained repeatedly.
- jmull 2y agoSure. But then that linux dev is no longer a linux dev. They are a linux C dev who needs to find a full linux dev, explain the issue, and get them to handle it. Now, if rust is only in a few corners of linux, then there isn’t much distinction between a linux C dev and a full linux dev, and it’s no big deal. But the goal appears to be to use it more extensively than that. To me, the entire approach to this is backwards. Rather than trying to force a preconceived solution, turn it around and say to linux devs “Look, memory safety is an issue in linux. What can be done about it?” Let them determine the solution. That’s when you can make the case for rust. (Though you probably won’t be successful if you keep blowing off the concerns of linux devs.)
- MiguelX413 2y agoLinus already made that decision, and it was Rust.
- steveklabnik 2y agoThe case was made. The solution that was determined was to add Rust to the kernel. What you’re suggesting should happen is what has been happening, for a few years now.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]