3 ms·

> If an already established and proven language was already being used for such a long time successfully, that should remain the language of the project. I gue

> If an already established and proven language was already being used for such a long time successfully, that should remain the language of the project. I guess it depends on what exactly you mean by "successfully". For example, while C is used for Linux and Linux is quite successful by most measures, that doesn't necessarily meant that there aren't areas where C isn't successful - in this case, a significant reason there's so much interest in Rust is precisely because there has not been success in producing reliably memory-safe code in C. I think "forcing" might be a bit of a strong word for what's going on as well, but that's neither here nor there.

integricho 2y ago
I agree, Rust indeed has an important role as a new language for writing memory-safe code, but to repeat what I meant, I like to see entirely new projects built with Rust from the ground up, not bolting it onto existing C or C++ projects just because Rust. In the long run it will cause fragmentation and increase complexity to such a point that it could destabilize the original project in its entirety. Build new things with Rust if you like, keep existing C projects as C projects, that is all.
- aw1621107 2y ago
  > not bolting it onto existing C or C++ projects just because Rust. I feel "just because Rust" leans a bit towards the overly-dismissive side. I'd imagine Linus isn't interested in potentially adding support for Rust "just because Rust" - presumably he thinks there are potential concrete upsides that Rust offers over C that are worth expending time and effort to investigate despite the potential complications from introducing a new language. > In the long run it will cause fragmentation and increase complexity to such a point that it could destabilize the original project in its entirety. This sounds scary and all, but I'm admittedly a bit skeptical about this argument. Why would introducing Rust support necessarily lead to the outcome you describe? Are there examples of such an outcome happening to other projects?

integricho 2y ago

I agree, Rust indeed has an important role as a new language for writing memory-safe code, but to repeat what I meant, I like to see entirely new projects built with Rust from the ground up, not bolting it onto existing C or C++ projects just because Rust. In the long run it will cause fragmentation and increase complexity to such a point that it could destabilize the original project in its entirety. Build new things with Rust if you like, keep existing C projects as C projects, that is all.

aw1621107 2y ago
> not bolting it onto existing C or C++ projects just because Rust. I feel "just because Rust" leans a bit towards the overly-dismissive side. I'd imagine Linus isn't interested in potentially adding support for Rust "just because Rust" - presumably he thinks there are potential concrete upsides that Rust offers over C that are worth expending time and effort to investigate despite the potential complications from introducing a new language. > In the long run it will cause fragmentation and increase complexity to such a point that it could destabilize the original project in its entirety. This sounds scary and all, but I'm admittedly a bit skeptical about this argument. Why would introducing Rust support necessarily lead to the outcome you describe? Are there examples of such an outcome happening to other projects?