Linux royalty backs adoption of Rust for kernel code
-
The one thing stopping large scale adoption of linux is definitely the lack of options.
-
Mostly this ^.
There's just not really demand for C++ in the kernel; that's not the case with Rust.
-
I think rust would also bring in more developers. So more changes would eventually make its way into the kernel.
-
Their arguments tend to come down to “just don’t write bad code”.
Oooooh, that's a good stratagy! Write that down! Write that down!
-
I just want WindowsXP without security risks. If Linux could make a WindowsXP clone, that works with exe files, and works exactly like WindowsXP, except handles modern standards, I would jizz all over the place.
Yeah. I'm leaving it in as motivation for linux developers. If they don't want to hear about my jizz spraying like a firehose, they should made LindowsXP.
SEE??? I EVEN GAVE YOU A GREAT BRAND NAME!
-
Microhard?
-
- Humans write code
- Humans make mistakes
∴ Humans write bad code
-
I don't know about you, but I prefer provably correct code over "just trust me bro."
There's an analogy I like here. A manager at a trucking company was hiring a new driver, and he asked each of them how close they could get to the edge on a mountain pass. The first said, "I can get within a wheel's width." The second said, "I can drive on the edge, with part of the tire hanging off." And the third said, "I stay away from the edge." The third applicant got the job, because why take the risk?
That's how I feel about C/C++. Why use them if Rust can do the job? You get a lot more safety features without sacrificing performance, what's not to like?
-
This sort of exists https://reactos.org/
Key word on sort of, it's quite rough in many areas
-
In general, for me, Rust > C > C++.
I've heard people say that C is like a loaded and cocked revolved, and if you're not careful, you could blow your foot off, whereas C++ is like a loaded and cocked sawed-off shotgun, and if you're not careful, you could blow your leg off.
-
And that's why I don't work in software development!
-
But some beautiful day in the future, bad code will write badder code.
-
The second they make it a mixed code base, that's the same second quality will deteriorate.
I envy your confidence!
-
That’s kind the entirety of my point: if Rust is a tool that can make expressing algorithms safer and less prone to error - and it can, in a logically provable sense - then what the fuck ground do you have to push back on?
-
Theres heaps of stuff that is under-developed or mssing, but they prefer to rewrite working code in Rust, because ideology.
We are witnessing the death of Linux here, no less, replacing a working kernal with an still undefined language that everyone will have forgotten in 5 years.
-
I feel like better tooling is a safer bet. I know people hate on AI here but tooling that can detect flaws in C memory management would be basically as good as Rust itself.
-
There was a "Lindows" back in the day...
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but as I read the article, Linus isn't convinced this is a good idea either.
I'm not saying things can never change, but opening for a mixed code base is a recipe for disaster. -
C++ is a semi automatic shotgun with 200 barrels pointing in all directions.
-
In my mind, introducing Rust would only make sense if:
- There was a serious lack of current kernel developers (which I don't think there is)
- New hardware and tech was evolving at a rate that the Linux Kernel could not keep up (again, I don't think this is am issue)
- The end goal is to migrate the entire Kernel to Rust.
Regarding point 3, having both C and Rust really only makes sense as a transition phase (measured in years) - as it would require kernel developers to be savvy in both C and Rust, or would force developers to stay within whatever domains were implemented in C or Rust.
