Reddit done gone 503.
This falls in the general category of "running down other languages/projects/people" (in this case, C++, and promoting Linus's rants about it), which I don't think we should highlight in a quote of the week.
Running down other languages or not, I was a little surprised that when the notion of using Rust in the kernel came up Linus did not immediately knock it down. I should not have been surprised though, Linus does not poo poo ideas on emotional grounds, he would have though about it first.
I don't believe Linus ever had any "rants". That word implies a very emotional outburst, frothing at the mouth with anger uncontrollably and so on. Linus is not like that. Apparently some got upset over his wording sometimes. But as far as I can tell he was only speaking straight and getting to the point, which is the normal mode of communication in Finland. A characteristic I prefer to falsely polite and long winded talking around and around when it comes to getting the job done properly.
Anyway, my only reservation of introducing Rust into the main line kernel would be the need to carry around LLVM to build a kernel. A large dependency too far. If the kernel could be built with Clang/LLVM or GCC had a Rust front end that would be great.
I don't think that counts as such. OP simply mentioned what Linus' opinion was about C++. They did not endorse it. If anything, the remark sounds sarcastic against Linus' anti-C++ position and/or style.
As far as I can tell C was pretty much the only language available to build Linux with at the time. From purely practical considerations never mind any subjective preferences and emotional attachments programmers have for their favourite languages.
Also it makes a lot of sense to me that having selected a language for such a project there would have to be massive advantages in anything else to even consider it. Having a polyglot system is going to be a lot harder to hold together. There have been no languages available with such massive advantages.
Enter Rust... For the first time, since Ada perhaps, a language arrives that does offer new features in terms of program correctness, which are very valuable in projects like an OS kernel.
I meant "promoting" in a literal sense (sending attention towards), not endorsing.
What I love about Rust is that it has been developed to solve concrete problems, built on top of the lessons (painfully) learnt while implementing real systems.
(It's formatted as a quote of some kind, but it's not duplicated from the non-quote parts, so I'm not sure if it's a pull quote, an uncited quote of one of the hyperlinks, or just confusing use of the markup. Google is being unhelpful on that front.)
What I actually value on a daily basis in [rust is]
I can call code written by other people without unpleasant surprises.
async fn verify_signature(token: &Jwt) -> Result<Claims, VerificationError>
Looking at a code snippet:
- I know my JWT token won't be mutated, just accessed (
- I know the function will probably perform some kind of I/O (
- I know that the function might fail (
- I know its failure modes (
As we all know, adding blockchain to a problem automatically makes it simple, transparent, and cryptographically secure.
source (Library for use in C++, but written in Rust)
(for the obtuse among us (including me), if that quote is pulled without context it might be good to note that it's heavily sarcastic, not just uninformed.)
Rust sparks joy.
"Rust is for professionals".
Great article. If a bit long winded for most who are not familiar with Rust.
To my mind, any professional programmer should have correctness of his creations as a primary goal. In the same way real engineers take pride in their aircraft not crashing, bridges not collapsing, brakes not failing and much else in the world.
I would go as far as to say any software engineer not looking at Rust is being professionally negligent.
Of course Rust is for happy hacker hobbyists as well. Why would they not want the product of their labours to be unpredictable.
RFC can be read as "Readme For Crate"
When talking about Rust is for Professionals
To me, the overarching message of the blog should be, Rust is making me a better software engineer.
Rust Is Creating Professionals.
From u/wsppan on Reddit.
Careful. My post with that statement in it was flagged and temporarily hidden. I suspect it was that statement that upset someone.
Perhaps it's a bit strongly worded. But I pitch it the same as suggesting that when using C and C++ one should have compiler warnings wound up to the max, tests in place, be making use of the various sanitisers and/or valgrind and so on.
In short professionals should be taking pride in their work and be keeping up with the latest in best practices in ensuring a quality product. I consider Rust is a significant development in that respect.
We feel that Rust is now ready to join C as a practical language for implementing the [Linux] kernel. It can help us reduce the number of potential bugs and security vulnerabilities in privileged code while playing nicely with the core kernel and preserving its performance characteristics.
I think that this may be one of the most impactful statements regarding Rust for a fair amount of time.
A very nice quote about Rust
If you only have experience with dynamically typed languages that will allow you to compile a ham sandwich, there's a good chance you'll be frustrated by Rust.