Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Rust Is Splitting The Linux Kernel In Half" video.

The more I learn of Rust, the more I realize it's just C++ with opposite defaults, more restrictions on what you can do, and a way shittier syntax. Quite frankly, if C++ wasn't a good fit for the kernel, I see no reason why Rust would be either. The really sad thing is, and I see far too many Rustaceans refuse to admit this, but with all the tooling available for C++, you can write code that's more safe than Rust while still being just as shit a developer as most Rustaceans are. And yet, my language of choice is neither Rust nor C++ because they both suck.
6
This is a problem for all compilers that you acquire via a binary distribution method, but the newness of Rust makes it more possible.
2
Unfortunately, they're nearly all a bunch of zealots. So reasonable behavior from them isn't going to happen, as evidenced by the first person to respond to your comment. And your conclusion is 100% correct, they should just kick it out of the kernel until they can demonstrate civility and capability, not to mention stop lying about the demands they're placing on others.
2
@toolman1990 Thanks for yet again proving my point.
2
While I don't agree that Rust is the future, I agree with all the rest, and I'll add that censorship is evil. So any Rustaceans that believe in censorship don't just perpetuate a negative image of the community, they embody it.
1
Are you suggesting that they'd be fanatical and reject it because it's not Rust? Furthermore, are you suggesting that that would indicate cultish behavior by kernel devs regardless of the kernel, or are you suggesting that Rustaceans are fanatical and reject all that isn't Rust?
1
@bruhtusnull I would assume, that based on principle, that most kernel devs would be resistant to adding something without benefit. Merely adding another language just to add it is pointless. But proving that it's a worthwhile endeavor would require doing more work than the Rust devs have put in. As to whether the Redox devs would accept another language, it depends on whether they're ideologically motivated. I don't know who's involved, so I can't answer that, but the Linux devs on the other hand I can to some extent answer that they're not particularly ideologically motivated, just that the Rust devs have not proven themselves or provided benefit.
1
@AM-yk5yd Except they didn't mean Rust, and they weren't being honest. They were pushing for Go, because they have a stake in its use. Lumping Rust in with Go as a memory safe language is not just disingenuous on their part, but it's also a lie. I'll keep saying it until Rustaceans actually admit the truth, but there's a bug in the language that allows lifetime leakage and any use of FFI automatically voids the protections of the language. In other words, until that bug is fixed and all prior versions immediately nullified, and the entire OS gets written in Rust, their guarantees are bullshit. Note that I'm also not saying Go is memory safe, because you still have to make use of FFI.
1
A toxic community can really ruin a project, all of the technical and ergonomic issues aside.
1