Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:33:29 -0500 From: Jan Knepper <jan@digitaldaemon.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Case for Rust (in the base system) Message-ID: <cb889f75-4e59-4958-bfff-0b3377a4482d@digitaldaemon.com> In-Reply-To: <202401210751.40L7pWEF011188@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <CAOtMX2hAUiWdGPtpaCJLPZB%2Bj2yzNw5DSjUmkwTi%2B%2BmyemehCA@mail.gmail.com> <1673801705774097@mail.yandex.ru> <CANCZdfpqWgvV_RCvVO_pvTrmajQFspW%2BQ9TM_Ok3JrXZAfeAfA@mail.gmail.com> <ef4ad207-5899-42b6-8728-bc46f1417e9e@antonovs.family> <202401210751.40L7pWEF011188@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Second! On 1/21/24 02:51, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > Ihor Antonov writes: > >> As much as I love the idea of Rust, I don't think it is going to solve >> our problems. > The tools are /never/ the real problem. > > I will readily agree that the ISO-C people have done more to hurt > the C language, and less to improve it, than anybody else, and that > we need to deal with their continued refusal to come into the 1990'ies. > > But after I read this entire thread, the "pro" argument for Rust > seems boil down to just "all the cool kids do it". > > That exact same argument was used for "Perl in base" and "Java in > base" previously, and if we hadn't dodged those bullets, we wouldn't > be here today. > > The sprawling and loosely connected ports collection has several > strata of "all the cool kids do it" languages, and it seems to be > a much better "organism" for dealing with their eventual obsolescence, > than our tightly integrated src collection. > > I will also "second" the comment about C++ getting to be a really > good language, in particular if you play it like a violin: > > Just because you /paid/ for the entire bow, doesn't mean you > have to /play/ the entire bow. > > So rather than jump onto this or some other hypewagon-of-the-year, > only to regret it some years later and having to repay the technical > debt with interest to get it out of the tree again, I propose that > we quietly and gradually look more and more to C++ for our "advanced > needs". > > I also propose, that next time somebody advocates for importing > some "all the cool kids are doing it language" or other, we refuse > to even look at their proposal, until they have proven their skill > in, and dedication to, the language, by faithfully reimplementing > cvsup in it, and documented how and why it is a better language for > that, than Modula-3 was. > > Poul-Henning >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb889f75-4e59-4958-bfff-0b3377a4482d>