Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 06:38:40 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Case for Rust (in the base system) Message-ID: <Za4NcPpy6--83vo3@FreeBSD.org> 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
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 07:51:32AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > ... > 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. +1. And Perl even didn't need to bootstrap itself with itself or specific version of LLVM which takes ages to build and/or ~200GB of tmpfs space. My computer at work has only 4GB of RAM and I still want to build and run modern FreeBSD on it. While I generally do not oppose the idea of (re)writing parts of the system in better, safer language, anything which itself is not written in C/C++ (or can bootstrap itself from scratch in minutes) should not be taken seriously. > 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". Right. FWIW, had evolved significantly over the last 20 years and gained a lot in the safety department with proper ownership (move) semantics, new reference/smart pointer types, lambdas, etc. to the extent its author claims that it's no less safe than Rust now*. > 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. As always, Poul-Henning just nails it. Well said! ./danfe *) https://developers.slashdot.org/story/23/01/21/0526236/rust-safety-is-not-superior-to-c-bjarne-stroustrup-says
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Za4NcPpy6--83vo3>