Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 08:36:42 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Antranig Vartanian <antranigv@freebsd.am> Cc: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The Case for Rust (in any system) Message-ID: <202409060836.4868agnQ042462@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <A81EFC70-CA81-4773-9666-419D5871D335@freebsd.am> References: <CAOtMX2iCNX5OkdeghnbmcMrO0UYWwm4zfxFSZGznOznu%2Bmh5rA@mail.gmail.com> <A81EFC70-CA81-4773-9666-419D5871D335@freebsd.am>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- Antranig Vartanian writes: > My point is: yes, we do need better languages. Yes, we do need memory-sa= fety = > and better tooling. But is Rust the answer? Rust is what all the cool kids run right now, which they will deny, claiming that Rust Is Simply Superior in replies to this email, despite this prediction. But as I said in an email a couple of days ago: We should not anoint some particular subset of programming languages or other. We should answer the question "What is FreeBSD?" in a way which does not contain a very short and controversial list of "approved programming languages". A pkg-based FreeBSD will allow the Rust people to write good code for FreeBSD in Rust, and C, C++, Go, Lua, OBERON or Ada can freely compete with them, without causing year-long slug-fests on the mailing lists. And if the INTERCAL people want to write FreeBSD kernel code in INTERCAL, they get to maintain whatever it takes for their compiler to grok the interfaces to the kernel, likewise for any other language. Poul-Henning PS: I'm disappointed you did not mention Ada with SPARK. -- = Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe = Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence= .
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202409060836.4868agnQ042462>