Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:16:26 -0400 From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Antranig Vartanian <antranigv@freebsd.am>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The Case for Rust (in any system) Message-ID: <102A9A46-D577-4651-8418-5E7946EA30A0@vigrid.com> In-Reply-To: <202409060836.4868agnQ042462@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <202409060836.4868agnQ042462@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sep 6, 2024, at 4:37=E2=80=AFAM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>= wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF-------- > Antranig Vartanian writes: >=20 >> My point is: yes, we do need better languages. Yes, we do need memory-saf= ety >> and better tooling. But is Rust the answer? >=20 > 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. >=20 > But as I said in an email a couple of days ago: We should not > anoint some particular subset of programming languages or other. >=20 > 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". >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Poul-Henning >=20 >=20 > PS: I'm disappointed you did not mention Ada with SPARK. +1 And back in the 80s, Ada was supposed to be the answer for safe coding langu= age. -- DE=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?102A9A46-D577-4651-8418-5E7946EA30A0>