5 ms·

I feel like Rust just isn’t stable or mature enough as a language for moving Linux towards it to make sense. Currently feels like you need a PhD in programming

I feel like Rust just isn’t stable or mature enough as a language for moving Linux towards it to make sense. Currently feels like you need a PhD in programming languages to use it effectively. Feels like Haskell in many ways.

nightski 2y ago
Kernel programming is probably one area you don’t need to optimize for newbie programmers to jump in like the web
itishappy 2y ago
I'm not sure lowering the barrier to contribute Linux kernel code is a great argument for C. It sounds like contributing code that doesn't segfault often still requires a PhD.
escobar_west 2y ago
Rust and Haskell are completely different languages so I don't really agree here. Haskell doesn't have the features (lifetimes, ownership) that make Rust "hard" and Rust lets you have mutable states and procedural code. Rust is also quite stable and mature by now, I'm not sure what example or reason you're using to say otherwise.
School-Cotton 2y ago
Rust and Haskell are difficult for completely different reasons. Rust is difficult for roughly the same reasons C++ is difficult.
- baq 2y ago
  I must protest - putting any language on par with C++ level of difficulty is unfair to C++. (Let's exclude malbolge and its relatives for a second)
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    I agree that rust is much less difficult than C++. But the things that are difficult about Rust are also difficult about C++… just less difficult, because the compiler helps you with them.
dralley 2y ago
With all due respect I question how much experience you actually have with Rust. It's nowhere close to being as difficult a language as you describe. Rust got popular in part because it made systems programming easier, simpler and more fool-proof than the existing alternatives (C, C++) for those coming from languages like Python, Ruby and Java. As someone whose primary experience is in Python, I never found Rust abnormally difficult to pick up, whereas Haskell is (and remains) entirely alien to me. Sure, lifetimes can get messy, but it's much easier to have the compiler hit me on the head when I'm doing something dumb than to spend 2 days figuring out how to use Valgrind and the other half-dozen different static analyzers. I don't need to devote 100% of my mental effort to be able to write reliable code that's not going to blow up later in subtle ways.
- zanellato19 2y ago
  I feel crazy when I read comments like that about Rust. C is much, much harder than Rust. C is absolutely crazy difficult. Fairly simple to learn, but incredibly hard to actually write correctly. Rust is much, much easier. The learning curve isn't that hard. One week and you can be fairly productive with it.
timeon 2y ago
> Currently feels like you need a PhD in programming languages to use it effectively. I've learned it because it was easier than C++ or even C. Yes you can learn C quickly, but you need much longer time than for rust to use it properly. Also I do not have PhD not even CS degree and it was not hard. You should try it.

nightski 2y ago

Kernel programming is probably one area you don’t need to optimize for newbie programmers to jump in like the web

itishappy 2y ago

I'm not sure lowering the barrier to contribute Linux kernel code is a great argument for C. It sounds like contributing code that doesn't segfault often still requires a PhD.

escobar_west 2y ago

Rust and Haskell are completely different languages so I don't really agree here. Haskell doesn't have the features (lifetimes, ownership) that make Rust "hard" and Rust lets you have mutable states and procedural code. Rust is also quite stable and mature by now, I'm not sure what example or reason you're using to say otherwise.

School-Cotton 2y ago

Rust and Haskell are difficult for completely different reasons. Rust is difficult for roughly the same reasons C++ is difficult.

baq 2y ago
I must protest - putting any language on par with C++ level of difficulty is unfair to C++. (Let's exclude malbolge and its relatives for a second)
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  I agree that rust is much less difficult than C++. But the things that are difficult about Rust are also difficult about C++… just less difficult, because the compiler helps you with them.

dralley 2y ago

With all due respect I question how much experience you actually have with Rust. It's nowhere close to being as difficult a language as you describe. Rust got popular in part because it made systems programming easier, simpler and more fool-proof than the existing alternatives (C, C++) for those coming from languages like Python, Ruby and Java. As someone whose primary experience is in Python, I never found Rust abnormally difficult to pick up, whereas Haskell is (and remains) entirely alien to me. Sure, lifetimes can get messy, but it's much easier to have the compiler hit me on the head when I'm doing something dumb than to spend 2 days figuring out how to use Valgrind and the other half-dozen different static analyzers. I don't need to devote 100% of my mental effort to be able to write reliable code that's not going to blow up later in subtle ways.

zanellato19 2y ago
I feel crazy when I read comments like that about Rust. C is much, much harder than Rust. C is absolutely crazy difficult. Fairly simple to learn, but incredibly hard to actually write correctly. Rust is much, much easier. The learning curve isn't that hard. One week and you can be fairly productive with it.

timeon 2y ago

> Currently feels like you need a PhD in programming languages to use it effectively. I've learned it because it was easier than C++ or even C. Yes you can learn C quickly, but you need much longer time than for rust to use it properly. Also I do not have PhD not even CS degree and it was not hard. You should try it.