3 ms·

> Should there be some duty to approach reality in these comments? What is wrong comparing Odin to Rust... or Zig to Rust.. or Zig to Odin? These languages exi

> Should there be some duty to approach reality in these comments? What is wrong comparing Odin to Rust... or Zig to Rust.. or Zig to Odin? These languages exists and should not be ignored simply for being labeled as `niche` The previous commenter referred Rust as being stable because it was version 1.0 nearly 10 years ago.. and I responded why this does not mean as much as people think. From 1.0 to (now) 1.80.1 -- how much change has Rust gone through? I would take a guess and say A LOT! I am sure Rust will get more changes in the next 10 years! This is why I think adding Rust to the kernel is 10 years premature. How much changes will need to be done to the Rust code in the next 10 years... I am guessing a lot. Comparing that with C, it is now going through the process of moving from C89 to C11. Once moved to C11 is unlikely to move for quite some time. Just because I bring up Odin and make (valid) points why it is a better C.. does not imply I think it should be added to the Kernel. It is a young language (like Zig) and I think they both have an interesting future ahead of them. I am just as interested seeing their journey in the next 10 years.. not just Rust. > I'm not sure what this says about Linus in his 30s I am just stating that it is hard to know REALLY what Linus thinks about Rust. I use Age as an example because he is likely making decisions, whether he agrees or not, for the future of the kernel beyond himself. He wont be maintainer forever. Thats all I say/write on this.

mustache_kimono 2y ago
> Comparing that with C, [the kernel] is now going through the process of moving from C89 to C11. Once moved to C11 is unlikely to move for quite some time. Such conservatism is fine(?), but I think it really should serve some purpose. You think Rust code will change, such that... it will not be understandable? You don't actually say. Why should we be concerned? > I am just stating that it is hard to know REALLY what Linus thinks about Rust. Perhaps that's why it sounds so weird, to my ear, to fantasize about how he really feels beyond the concrete technical reasons he's offered.
- masfoobar 2y ago
  > You think Rust code will change, such that... it will not be understandable? Its not about whether it is understandable or not -- it is NEW FEATURES!
  - mustache_kimono 2y ago
    > Its not about whether it is understandable or not -- it is NEW FEATURES! I guess I still don't understand. Your concern is new features will do what exactly to old Rust code?
    - steveklabnik 2y ago
      I have found that there are two different ways people think about the word stability: 1. A toolchain is stable if new toolchains can still work with older code written for a previous version of the toolchain. 2. A toolchain is stable if there is a slow rate of change in the toolchain. It would seem your parent is either in camp #2 or closer to #2 than #1.
      - whytevuhuni 2y ago
        There is also: 3. A toolchain is stable if it has LTS releases and bugfixes are backported to them, regardless of how many changes each non-LTS release brings. But I'm not sure if people think about stability like that often. I wish they did.
      - mustache_kimono 2y ago
        Steve, as always, very wise. Of course, it wasn't sensible, but it felt like my burden to say something when the reasoning was "But MORE features! Can't you see MORE is MORE?!" Perhaps because it reminded me of Drew Devault's mind-numbing "Rust is not a good C replacement". My more detailed thoughts on which are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41409049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41409049

mustache_kimono 2y ago

> Comparing that with C, [the kernel] is now going through the process of moving from C89 to C11. Once moved to C11 is unlikely to move for quite some time. Such conservatism is fine(?), but I think it really should serve some purpose. You think Rust code will change, such that... it will not be understandable? You don't actually say. Why should we be concerned? > I am just stating that it is hard to know REALLY what Linus thinks about Rust. Perhaps that's why it sounds so weird, to my ear, to fantasize about how he really feels beyond the concrete technical reasons he's offered.

masfoobar 2y ago
> You think Rust code will change, such that... it will not be understandable? Its not about whether it is understandable or not -- it is NEW FEATURES!
- mustache_kimono 2y ago
  > Its not about whether it is understandable or not -- it is NEW FEATURES! I guess I still don't understand. Your concern is new features will do what exactly to old Rust code?
  - steveklabnik 2y ago
    I have found that there are two different ways people think about the word stability: 1. A toolchain is stable if new toolchains can still work with older code written for a previous version of the toolchain. 2. A toolchain is stable if there is a slow rate of change in the toolchain. It would seem your parent is either in camp #2 or closer to #2 than #1.
    - whytevuhuni 2y ago
      There is also: 3. A toolchain is stable if it has LTS releases and bugfixes are backported to them, regardless of how many changes each non-LTS release brings. But I'm not sure if people think about stability like that often. I wish they did.
    - mustache_kimono 2y ago
      Steve, as always, very wise. Of course, it wasn't sensible, but it felt like my burden to say something when the reasoning was "But MORE features! Can't you see MORE is MORE?!" Perhaps because it reminded me of Drew Devault's mind-numbing "Rust is not a good C replacement". My more detailed thoughts on which are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41409049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41409049