Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:45:43 -0600 From: "Robert R. Russell" <robert@rrbrussell.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Case for Rust (in the base system) Message-ID: <20240122164543.066e3cec@venus.private.rrbrussell.com> In-Reply-To: <2f38cbcd-61a9-42b7-b7e6-ebd261fe66da@FreeBSD.org> 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> <20240121102421.GE14773@memo2.memo.frmug.org> <2f38cbcd-61a9-42b7-b7e6-ebd261fe66da@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:17:30 +0100 Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Am 21.01.24 um 11:24 schrieb Bertrand Petit: > > > One of the strong values of FreeBSD is its stability. For > > fun I recently booted a 4BSD-something on a VAX emulator and > > immediately felt at ease, because of this stability. I perceive > > rust, despite some of its technical merits, as unable to provide > > that kind of stability. This language is a fast and (still) > > unstable moving target, so fast that once integrated it will > > immediately be obsolete on release. The integrated version would > > probably only be usable to compile base, countless other packaged > > versions would be required to compile ports---I'm also thinking > > about llvm here. That is bound to be a maintenance nightmare, for > > the FreeBSD teams and for the users alike. > > I have read this thread up to what's here now, and I like that it > kept to a very useful constructive tone and arguments exchanged. > > So, personally, I've always found a language whose compiler gets > recompiled several times a week if I do ports development is > something I definitely can't advocate having in source. > > The same goes for the 3rd party stuff. > > Even if you mirror external dependencies to prevent from losing them > with some upstream maintainer's decision, and keep maintainable, that > begs the question: who is reviewing, polishing, maintaining this? We > certainly don't want Log4J-like disasters to strike because in all > convenience and "don't rewrite the world" programmer-time efficiency > claims we used all sorts of, whoever wrote this, "half the Internet". > > I understand that people who have spoken up in this thread have > inter-individually mixed feelings (meaning one person proposes it, > the next person is loathe of it) about C++, about the Standard > Template Library (STL) in particular, and I find it a pity that most > arguments in this thread around C++ did not mention a standard > edition's year. > > I have been around C++ since before it became an ISO standard, I have > seen it on the decline when C++03 seemed to have stalled, but I can > really sympathize with Microsoft's "Welcome back to C++" approach. > C++ has come a really long way, and over the past decade shown to > deliver continually. C++14 or C++17 is lightyears ahead over what > people left behind who haven't followed/used it in many years. > > So I really would have wished for people to not just write C++ but > really the minimum/oldest edition they would consider. > > I understand why people sometimes steer clear of Standard Template > Library - but I really liked how clear the dis-/advantages of its > datatypes and algorithms are laid out. Yes, you can still shoot > holes into your extremities when abusing the language, but Rust also > has unsafe modes... > > Rust advocates usually write about safety, but do we really want to > argue about introducing all this technical debt to just rule out ONE > PARTICULAR class of errors when there are dozens of others that open > up security risks? Seems a bit drastic to me. > > Do Rust proponents audit what all the indirect dependencies' codes do > before referencing them? Or are there bodies that tell us what > libraries are safe, when the base language can't dance? > > So bottom line, let's see to pushing Rust back and keeping it out of > the base system until it is stable, mature, and useful without > betting and risking our world on half of the outside Internet -- and > we really know it's not just another fad of the decade and have valid > use cases that really can't be shown in what we have in the base > system today. > Having had the luxury or curse of not being stuck with only one programming language I have learned usable pieces of several. C++ is not on that list even though I have the most formal education in it. My best way of answering why is this. Would you write or use a C++ codebase maintained by the average developer with just Vi? Up to C++03 I can say yes, after that the answer is no. A consequence of Microsoft's "Welcome back to C++" item that may have gotten missed is what resources are they spending to enforce compliance with a certain C++ standard? Particularly, to enforce the restrictions on anti-patterns? Cargo needs approximately a dozen lines in a configuration file to restrict its upstream sources. That includes whitespace and formatting.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20240122164543.066e3cec>