Context for s*x-havers:
Rust is a recent programming language which includes safety measures to prevent programmers from writing certain types of bugs. Linux is written in C, an old programming language which doesn't have any sort of security features. Linux has many millions of line of C code, and there is a push to transition at least part of the code to Rust to increase the overall security, but many object as there is a lot of friction in integrating the 2 languages and also people don't want to learn a new language to keep doing their job.
Today one of the guys pushing Rust's adoption into Linux has officially given up, citing "too much non-technical nonsense" and pointing to these 3 heated minutes during his talk at a technical conference for Linux developers:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I like rust but I don't think it really deserves to be in the kernel
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
it's mostly targeting modules and FUSE and other userspace stuff. But I agree there should be no rust in the kernel until there is a second compiler like GCC for rust
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The complaint is that currently, when things are in the kernel tree, they get updated for kernel changes. Further, the ways things use the current API is factored into future refactorings and development. This was intentional -- just look at the push back against Hardware Abstraction Layers being added to the kernel tree over the years.
The kernel Rust evangelists then say that no one is saying that you need to learn Rust to contribute to the kernel, but once Rust starts popping up in the kernel tree, you do need to learn it to contribute whether or not anyway says it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context