3 ms·

I don’t particularly care about this discussion and I’m overall fairly sympathetic to what Rust tries to achieve but some of the claims made on the Linux ML by

I don’t particularly care about this discussion and I’m overall fairly sympathetic to what Rust tries to achieve but some of the claims made on the Linux ML by Rust zealots don’t help them. Memory safety through life cycle tracking is not the be-all end-all perfect solution to issues that some proponents paint especially in the kernel context and constantly painting C developers are irresponsible is probably not the wisest choice as a convincing strategy.

steveklabnik 2y ago
I am simply stating the facts of the situation, if you think that means that the C folks are irresponsible, that’s on you. I do not think the C folks are being irresponsible. I think some of the C people are being obstinate, and deliberately trying to interfere with the experiment Linus asked to be carried out. There are others who have been quite supportive!
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > I am simply stating the facts of the situation No, you are not. You are presenting your interpretation of the facts implying it’s truth in a way which is entirely typical of how Rust outreach has always been done. As usual, it’s more about emotion that facts. If you bring the Ruby playbook to a kernel discussion, you are not going to be well received. Anyway, let me bit this bullet regarding the irresponsible comment: "But I get the feeling that some Linux kernel maintainers just don't care about future code quality, or about stability or security any more […] They just want to keep their C code and wish us Rust folks would go away. And that's really sad... and isn't helping make Linux better." Asahi Lina
  - steveklabnik 2y ago
    That the Rust code is allowed to break, and that the Rust for Linux folks have agreed to fix it so that nobody who doesn't want to write Rust does not have to write Rust, is a fact.
    - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
      I was merely stating that the Rust folks are going around stating that C developers who are not convinced that Rust is the way of the future are irresponsible. I never implied that the people were somehow forced to write Rust - even if it would be a logical conclusion of Rust becoming part of the kernel at the end of the experiment considering the policy has always been that breakage is unacceptable. I'm tempted to think that if you have to move the goal post so much maybe you are not the one being right in the conversation. Note that I think that introducing Rust to the kernel with said policy might actually be a good thing. Rust has a lot of nice features (but so does Ada to be honest and I have yet to see anyone vehemently complain that Ada is not accepted in the kernel). I just extremely dislike the way the Rust community constantly oversell it and don't like seeing people like Ted Ts'o who have been huge contributors to the kernel being thrown mud at for perfectly understandable positions.

steveklabnik 2y ago

I am simply stating the facts of the situation, if you think that means that the C folks are irresponsible, that’s on you. I do not think the C folks are being irresponsible. I think some of the C people are being obstinate, and deliberately trying to interfere with the experiment Linus asked to be carried out. There are others who have been quite supportive!

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> I am simply stating the facts of the situation No, you are not. You are presenting your interpretation of the facts implying it’s truth in a way which is entirely typical of how Rust outreach has always been done. As usual, it’s more about emotion that facts. If you bring the Ruby playbook to a kernel discussion, you are not going to be well received. Anyway, let me bit this bullet regarding the irresponsible comment: "But I get the feeling that some Linux kernel maintainers just don't care about future code quality, or about stability or security any more […] They just want to keep their C code and wish us Rust folks would go away. And that's really sad... and isn't helping make Linux better." Asahi Lina
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  That the Rust code is allowed to break, and that the Rust for Linux folks have agreed to fix it so that nobody who doesn't want to write Rust does not have to write Rust, is a fact.
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    I was merely stating that the Rust folks are going around stating that C developers who are not convinced that Rust is the way of the future are irresponsible. I never implied that the people were somehow forced to write Rust - even if it would be a logical conclusion of Rust becoming part of the kernel at the end of the experiment considering the policy has always been that breakage is unacceptable. I'm tempted to think that if you have to move the goal post so much maybe you are not the one being right in the conversation. Note that I think that introducing Rust to the kernel with said policy might actually be a good thing. Rust has a lot of nice features (but so does Ada to be honest and I have yet to see anyone vehemently complain that Ada is not accepted in the kernel). I just extremely dislike the way the Rust community constantly oversell it and don't like seeing people like Ted Ts'o who have been huge contributors to the kernel being thrown mud at for perfectly understandable positions.