If I go to any of the teams I interact with who program their components in C++ and proposed Rust or anything else, I’d get a similar reaction. They’re very good at C++ and they very rarely have memory and threading issues. 😂
It’s always the “rarely” that gets you. A program that doesn’t crash is awesome, a program that crashes consistently is easy to debug (and most likely would be caught during development anyway), but a program that crashes only once a week? Wooo boy.
People vastly underestimate the value Rust brings by ensuring the same class of bugs will never happen.
They don’t get, that without memory issue resistant language, not a lot of new blood will be as good as them dealing with that stuff since they already have that solved in the language itself.
It is about making kernel development future proof, so that new devs keep on coming and don’t create massive security holes on the way.
Note that Rust does not “solve” memory management for you, it just checks whether yours is memory safe. Initially you might rely on the borrow checker for those checks, but as you become more and more used to Rust you’ll start to anticipate it and write code that already safisfies it. So ultimately you’ll still learn how to safely deal with memory management, just in a different way.
Yeah all of the times I see Rust being described as “harder to learn” than C I just shake my head. It’s like saying that it’s easier to just fall off the cliff at the Grand Canyon instead of taking the path down. Any additional difficulty is because the language forces you to understand memory and pointers properly, instead of just letting you fuck around and find out.
If I go to any of the teams I interact with who program their components in C++ and proposed Rust or anything else, I’d get a similar reaction. They’re very good at C++ and they very rarely have memory and threading issues. 😂
It’s always the “rarely” that gets you. A program that doesn’t crash is awesome, a program that crashes consistently is easy to debug (and most likely would be caught during development anyway), but a program that crashes only once a week? Wooo boy.
People vastly underestimate the value Rust brings by ensuring the same class of bugs will never happen.
They don’t get, that without memory issue resistant language, not a lot of new blood will be as good as them dealing with that stuff since they already have that solved in the language itself.
It is about making kernel development future proof, so that new devs keep on coming and don’t create massive security holes on the way.
Well this is how I understand it.
And it’s a bad argument anyway. You’re only good at memory management until the first bug takes down production.
Rust isn’t a panacea and certainly has problems, but eliminating an entire class of potentially very dangerous bugs is a very good argument.
Note that Rust does not “solve” memory management for you, it just checks whether yours is memory safe. Initially you might rely on the borrow checker for those checks, but as you become more and more used to Rust you’ll start to anticipate it and write code that already safisfies it. So ultimately you’ll still learn how to safely deal with memory management, just in a different way.
Yeah all of the times I see Rust being described as “harder to learn” than C I just shake my head. It’s like saying that it’s easier to just fall off the cliff at the Grand Canyon instead of taking the path down. Any additional difficulty is because the language forces you to understand memory and pointers properly, instead of just letting you fuck around and find out.
😃I see, nice to know
Good thing no one is asking the Linux C devs to write rust