Rust Will Help Linux Succeed and Makes Coding Fun, Says Greg Kroah-Hartman (zdnet.com) 121
ZDNet reports on June's Open Source Summit India 2026 in Mumbai, where Linux stable kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman gave a talk titled "Rust and Linux: How the Rust Language is Going to Help Linux Succeed."
Kroah-Hartman said in his keynote that "the [Linux] kernel is moving toward Rust. Git is moving toward Rust. Lots of projects are starting to move toward Rust."
He didn't always feel that way. Kroah-Hartman added, "A number of years ago, when a friend of mine said, 'Ah, you got to try this new language. It's called Rust.' I was like, 'What? No, C is great.' His friend continued, "'No, no, no! It makes programming fun again.' I'm like, 'Nah, programming is fun in C.' He was right. I should have done it then. Rust is actually fun. It makes programming fun. It takes a lot of stuff away from having to worry about the compiler, which can fix a lot of your problems for you, and it makes code a little bit better."
So, Kroah-Hartman has moved from being a Rust skeptic to one of its strongest champions inside the kernel. He now regards Rust as a permanent part of Linux, not an experiment. His case is straightforward: Rust's ownership and type system can eliminate most of the "stupid little tiny things" that dominate kernel Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), while making life easier for overworked maintainers. "Rust," in short, "makes my life so much easier...." In India, he said Linux sees "about 13 CVEs a day" and has been running at "almost nine changes an hour" for a decade or more. Most of those vulnerabilities, he argued, are not exotic attacks but simple C mistakes — unchecked pointers, forgotten unlocks, and sloppy cleanup paths: "This is what we're fixing 13 times a day. Small, trivial, little bugs like this all the time.... I've seen every CVE the kernel has done in the past 25 years. I think 80% would be gone, just because they would be caught by Rust." The remaining 20% are the logic bugs he'd prefer to focus on...."
Moreover, Rust is becoming the default for new work in key subsystems. "New drivers for some subsystems are only going to be accepted in Rust...." he said. Binder, the Android IPC mechanism at the heart of billions of devices, now has parallel C and Rust implementations in the kernel. The C version "will go away soon," leaving the Rust version "as the bedrock of all Android devices going forward."
He didn't always feel that way. Kroah-Hartman added, "A number of years ago, when a friend of mine said, 'Ah, you got to try this new language. It's called Rust.' I was like, 'What? No, C is great.' His friend continued, "'No, no, no! It makes programming fun again.' I'm like, 'Nah, programming is fun in C.' He was right. I should have done it then. Rust is actually fun. It makes programming fun. It takes a lot of stuff away from having to worry about the compiler, which can fix a lot of your problems for you, and it makes code a little bit better."
So, Kroah-Hartman has moved from being a Rust skeptic to one of its strongest champions inside the kernel. He now regards Rust as a permanent part of Linux, not an experiment. His case is straightforward: Rust's ownership and type system can eliminate most of the "stupid little tiny things" that dominate kernel Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), while making life easier for overworked maintainers. "Rust," in short, "makes my life so much easier...." In India, he said Linux sees "about 13 CVEs a day" and has been running at "almost nine changes an hour" for a decade or more. Most of those vulnerabilities, he argued, are not exotic attacks but simple C mistakes — unchecked pointers, forgotten unlocks, and sloppy cleanup paths: "This is what we're fixing 13 times a day. Small, trivial, little bugs like this all the time.... I've seen every CVE the kernel has done in the past 25 years. I think 80% would be gone, just because they would be caught by Rust." The remaining 20% are the logic bugs he'd prefer to focus on...."
Moreover, Rust is becoming the default for new work in key subsystems. "New drivers for some subsystems are only going to be accepted in Rust...." he said. Binder, the Android IPC mechanism at the heart of billions of devices, now has parallel C and Rust implementations in the kernel. The C version "will go away soon," leaving the Rust version "as the bedrock of all Android devices going forward."
And it has (Score:2, Funny)
...blueberry marshmallows!
Fun (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have fun programming in Rust, you will have fun programming in C.
"Fun" is something manager types tell you when they are trying to convince you to do something. If something is fun, you don't need to tell people. It's also what you tell toddlers [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Rust is fun like financial accounting regulations are fun. As in, not fun or satisfying at all for anyone except a tiny minority of people.
C is fun like wrenching on a motorcycle. Necessary if you want your things to work, and a bit dangerous if you aren't careful about your business.
The desire for “Unix” on commodity PC (Score:2)
It's about destroying Microsoft; like in the Old Days
Nope. Linux is now corporate driven, not hobbyist driven. Linux development is largely about having a “Unix” platform that is easily ported to new hardware architectures, large and small. Matter of fact, that’s probably what motivates most hobbyists. Linux’s success is more rooted in the desire for “Unix” on commodity PC hardware than Microsoft hate.
Circa 1990 many of us software developers were eagerly following the various efforts to bring Unix to PC. The students, t
Re: (Score:2)
Liking programming will be beside the point in a few years when the bots have totally taken it over. In a way, it is poetic justice to see those Silicon Valley types who think computation is all anyone needs to know booted out on their asses; hoist on their own petard.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have fun programming in Rust, you will have fun programming in C.
Programming in C is a bit of a slog, frankly. You have to do every. little. thing. by. hand, even though there's a perfectly good computer sitting right there you could (in principle) use to automate away tedious stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, C does exactly what you tell it to do. Rust always feels like a constant argument with the compiler (linter really?) where it keeps going 'I understand what you are trying to but am not going to do it'
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, C does exactly what you tell it to do.
Not exactly. It does what the compiler, through blind, fast, accurate and utterly mechanically stupid application of the rules of the standard believes you have told it. The standard has scope to allow for demons to fly from your nose and the compiler will oblige you in that if you accidentally ask it to.
Rust always feels like a constant argument with the compiler (linter really?) where it keeps going 'I understand what you are trying to but am not go
Re: (Score:2)
Not an attack on C, but if you don't know what the compiler is going to do with your code you should have used another language.
If you don't want it to prove Y than you can always just temporarily switch off the prover (i.e. borrow checker[*]) and fuck around with dereferencing raw pointers to your heart's content in an unsafe block.
The problem is that the areas where the evangelists want Rust to save the world, like in the linux kernel, you're usually going to be doing that. It's a mirage.
Most of the time when you can have all the protections, why are you even trying to use a compiled language? Maybe it should be written in Ruby or Python, or something.
Re: (Score:2)
but if you don't know what the compiler is going to do with your code you should have used another language.
I would say this rules out about 99.99% of C programmers from using C then.
The problem is that the areas where the evangelists want Rust to save the world,
Eh? I'm just making an argument about what the compiler is doing.
you're usually going to be doing that.
This is exceptionally doubtful.
It's a mirage.
It is not. Even if we wildly overestimate the amount of raw pointer fuckage you actually need to, say
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. It does what the compiler, through blind, fast, accurate and utterly mechanically stupid application of the rules of the standard believes you have told it. The standard has scope to allow for demons to fly from your nose and the compiler will oblige you in that if you accidentally ask it to.
This is an invocation of the standard Rust "undefined behavior" bogeyman, and it tells me you don't actually know what you're talking about.
A thing may be "undefined" in C, but that does not mean that daemons may fly from your nose. It means "consult your CPU's manual".
C does precisely what you told it to do.
uint32_t *resetVector = 0;
printf("The reset vector is: %p\n", *resetVector);
Undefined behavior. C doesn't guarantee that does anything sane at all. Your ARM7TDMI does, however.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you posted anonymous and didn't say anything, because... know shit? Jack shit, maybe.
You not only didn't manage to make a point, you didn't even succeed at claiming something was wrong, because you didn't know enough about the subject to even point to which part you wanted to argue about.
And you were replying to a weak argument, so it should have been a softball.
Re: (Score:2)
No. C does not do exactly what you tell it to do. Not with modern day optimisers transforming your code in all kind of interesting ways and doing totally weird things if you accidentally hit some undefined behaviour (as defined by the C standard)
Those "arguments" you might have with the Rust compiler are no different that the arguments you will have with your failing tests, and debugger after your C code has compiled. The problems of getting your types lined up and lifetimes of data are the same in both ca
Re: (Score:2)
No. C does not do exactly what you tell it to do. Not with modern day optimisers transforming your code in all kind of interesting ways and doing totally weird things if you accidentally hit some undefined behaviour (as defined by the C standard)
Optimisers rely on you not writing code that utilizes undefined behavior, this is true.
However, -O0 - look at that. Gone.
Now you can compile this module that relies on undefined behavior to modify the interrupt vectors in this CPU safely, because the C compiler will do exactly what you told it to do.
If you're more advanced, you will know your compiler pragmas for disabling optimization of specific blocks of code, so that you can leave it enabled module-wide.
If clang and gcc did not do exactly what you
Re: (Score:2)
C only does exactly what you tell it to do, but that's not helpful unless you know exactly what's under the hood.
Consider a very simple case: strcpy. What you think you're telling the compiler to do, is copy a string to a buffer. But if the buffer isn't big enough, or if you haven't allocated a buffer at all, you do *not* get what you thought you'd get, you get an exception. In modern languages, if you want to copy a string to a buffer, you just do it, the compiler or interpreter handles making sure that th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you'd be wrong, but don't let it change your opinion.
I like C++, it's fun. Nice combination of being able to do whateverthefuck you want but also you can program the compiler. C has the former but not the latter, and as a programmer I like to program rather than be weirdly precious about not programing the compiler.
I love AWK. It's just so good at what it does, and amazingly underrated.
BASH is my homeboy.
sed, because sometimes life is too easy
Python and Java are... fine. I like programming in general
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I don't think you enjoy programming. That's why you became a manager.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't give any indication you actually enjoy them.
Are you completely fucking stupid naturally or are you actively trying to be a moron? To pick some things I said:
"I like C++, it's fun"
"I love AWK"
"BASH is my homeboy"
"I quite like PIC asm"
"Shader graphs are just fun"
"Oh yeah and scripting complex actions etc in BOOM compatible engines is let us say, barrels of fun."
If you think that's not giving "any indication" that I "actually enjoy them", then you need your head examined because it ain't working rig
Many C apps just add a dash of C++ (Score:2)
If you have fun programming in Rust, you will have fun programming in C.
Programming in C is a bit of a slog, frankly. You have to do every. little. thing. by. hand ...
That’s what C++ is for. Many C++ apps actually use little of C++. It is far more common to find that an app is mostly C style with just a few C++ features being used. Smart pointers being a common one.
Re: (Score:2)
Rust also makes quite a good target for AI-powered Spec Driven Development - if that's "fun" or not is a whole debate of its own, mind you.
Rust is compiled, and it's pretty picky about what you can and can't do, so AI agents are quite easily able to iterate a couple of goes until they get something that actually compiles and runs. At that point, in a lot of cases they have /something/ to show for their efforts, very much v0.1, but it's usually a decent place from which to iterate.
From then on, sure, it gets
Re: Fun (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While true, most Rust evangelists aren't programming in either language.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have fun programming in Rust, you will have fun programming in C.
I have fun programming in Rust. I don't like programming in C. I do like programming in C++. I like building type systems that prevent errors and automate drudgery. Both C++ and Rust let me do that, C does not.
I think the point of your "you will have fun programming in C" is that in both languages (and C++) you spend a fair amount of time thinking about low-level details of what the compiler is generating. That's true, and I like thinking about memory layouts, cache lines, what the optimizer is going
Re: (Score:2)
I have fun programming in Rust... I like building type systems that prevent errors and automate drudgery. Both C++ and Rust let me do that, C does not...you spend a fair amount of time thinking about low-level details of what the compiler is generating. That's true, and I like thinking about memory layouts, cache lines, what the optimizer is going to do
You very convincingly make it sound so fun.
Re: (Score:2)
I have fun programming in Rust... I like building type systems that prevent errors and automate drudgery. Both C++ and Rust let me do that, C does not...you spend a fair amount of time thinking about low-level details of what the compiler is generating. That's true, and I like thinking about memory layouts, cache lines, what the optimizer is going to do
You very convincingly make it sound so fun.
My point is that if that low-level stuff is what makes C fun to you, then Rust and C++ will be fun, too... but without all of the drudgery and error-prone crap C makes you do.
If that's not what makes C fun to you, then what is? It's certainly not being able to accomplish a lot quickly; higher-level languages are much better for that.
Rust is a tech debt killer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still very easy to write application level bugs in Rust but having the door closed on so many by design means less overall. Other niceties like not having to write headers and sources, integrated unit testing, package management, cross compilatio
Re: (Score:3)
Something like Rust should have become the norm or the standard 25 years ago.
Perhaps programming in it isn't fun but I'm long past fed up of hearing "use the right tool for the job" from those who refuse to use any tool except the ones they're already familiar with
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
From Grok: **John Carmack has a generally positive but pragmatic view of Rust.** He's experimented with it for small projects and appreciates its design, but it hasn't become his primary language for larger work due to practical constraints.
### Key Quotes and Opinions from Carmack
- **"Wholesome" feel**: In 2019, he tweeted: *"I'm still completely in the excited-newbie honeymoon phase, but writing Rust code feels very wholesome."* This is one of the most cited positive remarks.
- On small projects: He mention
Re: (Score:2)
**Carmack's comment** (from August 2020):
> "Just last night I was thinking about how it was possible that, given the relative trends, Mozilla’s greater legacy might turn out to be Rust, not Firefox."
### Why he said this
At the time (and still today), **Firefox's market share** had been steadily declining for years. Chrome dominated the browser market, and Mozilla was facing financial pressures, repeated layoffs, and questions about its long-term viability as a major browser vendor. Firefox remains a
Coding? (Score:1)
Who does that anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who does that anymore?
People having fun. :-)
Rust is only fun (Score:1)
Rust's let reminds me of Spectrum or ZX-81 basic (Score:2)
So yeah, I guess it's fun in trying to reach those bygone years of by 80's childhood.
let foo = bar;
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
inhibits creative coding
It inhibits sloppy coding, but certainly not creative coding. It just requires some proof that you're not committing some programming sins. AI-produced code never gets reviewed adequately (you can't convince me that these people bragging about 50,000 lines a day are reviewing it all), but at least rust's compiler gives me some confidence in one class of bugs in its code (as long as you build your vibe-slop with `-Dunsafe-code`)
Re: (Score:2)
However, what's the lifetime of an interrupt vector? A DMA register?
Bolting Rust to everything is a cancer. Sometimes its constraints are so fascist that it begs you to construct logically questionable code.
It solves memory safety, while introducing an entirely new class of vulnerability: Broken logic beca
I've heard this one before (Score:2)
"$Coding_Language" will make coding fun!
Since, but not including COBOL.
It's fun if it makes coding it fun for you. And it scratches your itch. But no one language is either fun, nor is suitable for all use cases.
Now, get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading the exact same headline about Go some time ago. Then some time before that C++...... Java as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you did. However Go, C++ never offered anything more than "nice syntax" for this and that. Java helped with real problems, at the expense of the JVM and GC overhead. Rust however offers features never seen before in compiled to native code languages. Even the very anal Ada learned tricks from Rust in recent years,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but never, ever fun!
COBOL’s goal was to make code work correctly (Score:2)
"$Coding_Language" will make coding fun!
Since, but not including COBOL.
COBOL’s goal was to make code work correctly. Admiral Grace Hopper made sure it met that goal. Too bad she didn’t help K&R and Bjarne. :-)
AI makes programming fun (Score:1)
Very few people enjoy the art of craft. Programming is no different.
Getting the benefit of craftsmanship is a lot more appealing than making the effort to learn how to produce that benefit yourself.
As AI becomes more capable, accessible and cheap the limits will be our understanding and creativity. I do believe the best AI today can code in Rust too...and as Linux lends itself we'll to AI and headless automation it will continue to do
Re: (Score:2)
I actually agree with you. I've written code in 28 languages over my career, and to me, syntax is annoying. I just want to get done what I want to get done. AI takes care of the boring syntax stuff, and I like that.
That seems a bit disconnected (Score:2)
No argument about the accomplishments of Greg HK, but first, Linux has already succeeded. And second, most people will struggle with Rust. It is just too complex for the average kernel contributor. It also does not, as Linus has pointed out, prevent logic errors.
Re: (Score:2)
If Rust is too complex then so is C.
C pushes ALL of the complexity onto the programmer, whereas more recent languages get the computer to do things it's good at.
It also does not, as Linus has pointed out, prevent logic errors.
That's not wrong, it's also not right either. For example, C has no way of distinguishing between a pointer to an array, a pointer to a single datum and a pointer to an object which might not exist (i.e.one that can hold NULL), and of course nothing about the ownership of the pointee.
Re: (Score:2)
From your utterly lucidus statement, you seem to not know either Rust or C.
Re: (Score:2)
I think C fanatics are possibly even worse than Rust fanatics.
No debate, no argument, just flinging poo and ignoring the last 70 years of computer science development.
I note you didn't actually address a single point. It's because you know you can't and know you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I note you didn't actually address a single point. It's because you know you can't and know you are wrong.
Keep telling yourself that, it is all you have here. Seriously, Rust and C share an application domain, but the language designs are very, very different. And Rust is complex.
Incidentally, I am not a "C fanatic" at all, that is just you trying to throw crap. Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep telling yourself that
It's very easy to keep doing because you keep flinging poo without saying anything of substance.
Seriously, Rust and C share an application domain,
Yes.
And Rust is complex.
Yes, and? Never said it wasn't. If you want a simple language, use Brainfuck or Unlambda. Few languages are simpler than those. When you actually think and understand why they are bad languages for programming, you will just get an inkling of why having a simple language can simply push complexity onto the programm
Re: (Score:2)
You think using a complex language in FOSS has no strong effects on the community? Seriously, what are you on?
Flinging invective, saying nothing of substance? Yeah you're a fanatic.
Nope. But I usually know what I am talking about because I have done real work in > 10 different languages and know a few more. You, on the other hand, seem to have been backed into a corner, but seem to be unable to admit that to yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
You think using a complex language in FOSS has no strong effects on the community?
What's that got to do with the price of fish? By all means continue slinging nonsequiteurs, I can keep it up all day.
Nope.
Yep.
But I usually know what I am talking about
The evidence suggests otherwise.
I have done real work in > 10 different languages and know a few more.
You seem like a 1 year's experience repeated 10 times rather than 10 years experience sort of chap.
You seem incapable of understanding that language complex
Rust Team’s PR and media relations office (Score:2)
If Rust is too complex then so is C.
Only to those in the Rust Team’s PR and media relations office.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not wrong, it's also not right either. For example, C has no way of distinguishing between a pointer to an array, a pointer to a single datum and a pointer to an object which might not exist (i.e.one that can hold NULL)
It's true that the contract for whether or not a pointer is nullable cannot be enforced within the language, but if such a contract does exist in a codebase, and you don't follow it, I'm not entirely sure that's a logic error.
As for what C does and does not know about a pointer- it knows as much as you tell it.
int *[] is not the same as int **.
int * is not the same as int **
This can get a bit funky across function boundaries, but the function definitions restore the types, even if they have to be cast.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you are not using malloc then. malloc will say "sure, here is your gigabyte allocation" and then when your program gets around to using that space may well segfault if the memory is not actually available at that time. I'm curious, how are you defending yourself from that?
Re: That seems a bit disconnected (Score:2)
As always with Rust (Score:4, Funny)
Whenever a story about Rust comes up, one must be always be aware of the consequences [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
AI (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If all the "problems" are stupid little things then why not just have AI clean it up? Insist that developers use AI defensively rather than tying their hands with a language that limits them.
The AI is trained on the output of human developers and so has the same problems as human developers. Computationally, a "wrong" program can be just as valid a result as a "right" program. You only avoid the wrong program through some form of constraint. If your constraints are all in your context window, rather than in your development environment then
a) they push other things that might also be important out of the context window
b) they are subject to the misunderstandings of the same constrains that exis
Re: AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you keep the field small. Handle one kind of error at a time. Have it debug every change and look again for more errors. Loop this until it can't find any. Get it to report exactly what it did in words and confirm it looks reasonable to you. Loop again if it isn't reasonable. That is way faster than doing it manually.
Is it faster? It sounds really tedious and error-prone to me. If someone were to suggest I quit writing code and instead spend the rest of my career supervising the intern as he writes code for me to review and correct, I'd feel the same way about that.
Re: AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Computationally, a "wrong" program can be just as valid a result as a "right" program.
I think you have a point you are trying to make, but I cannot figure out what you are trying to say here at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's some example code of a "wrong" program that is 100% valid:
int sum_two_numbers(int a, int b)
{
return a-b;
}
Re: AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If all the "problems" are stupid little things then why not just have AI clean it up? Insist that developers use AI defensively rather than tying their hands with a language that limits them.
I have to push back against your assumption that Rust is a language that limits developers. It absolutely does not. As for the AI bit... I use AI to write code all day. It's great, but it makes the same sort of mistakes humans do. I find Rust is a great language for AI to write (under appropriate supervision).
Re: AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok so when I develop an application in Python or c++ I use Qt. Is there something comparable to Qt in rust?
You can use Qt from Rust.
Re: AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But not only do you have to use a bridge for that (more limited) but it's in C++ anyway!
Same with Python.
Re: AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Python has native libraries. I don't have a problem using c++.
No, the Python APIs are implemented on top of C++. Qt is a fundamentally C++ API and library. Anything other than C++ will be some sort of wrapper.
Re: AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok but the point is I don't care whether I use python or c++.
I don't care whether I use Python or C++ or Rust... though I prefer Rust. It's nicer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It can't be nicer. It nags you into not doing certain things.
It's absolutely nicer. I've been writing C++ for 36 years and really enjoy it, but I find Rust to be much more pleasant to work in.
I don't know about Qt from Rust (I avoid UI code). It's been 15 years since I wrote any Qt code so I don't really remember it all that well even from C++, and it's probably evolved, so I can't even guess about what it might be like and whether the impedance mismatches with Rust are significant -- The C++ and Rust object models are somewhat different, so there definitely can
Re: AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To each their own. I'm a python guy. I don't like typed variables or specifying anything I don't have to. Lately I don't work with code at all. I have AI do it in Python first then port to C++. It would be interesting to see if I could port to rust.
I strongly dislike dynamically-typed languages like Python. They're okay for toy programs but for anything of any size... you'd better have one hell of a good test suite because the tools give you absolutely no help. I want strong, static typing. I want a very picky compiler that won't accept anything that isn't exactly correct. C++ is good. Rust is better. I do like type inference so I don't have to manually specify types very often. C++ is reasonably good at this. Rust is better.
I also do a fair
Re: AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I don't need help from the tools.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
It's all just a wrapper for assembly (Score:2)
Will help Linux succeed? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By making people dependent on their cloud perpetual subscription versions.
Re: (Score:2)
By making people dependent on their cloud perpetual subscription versions.
Right, they want them dependent on the applications, and providing the OS is no longer necessary to accomplish that.
Fun Is Subjective (Score:2)
Oh, Greg (Score:5, Interesting)
You will like Rust OR ELSE (Score:2)
You must strike your back with this rusty piece of barbed wire 19 times per hour. It's fun.
Wish they would use a programming language with a bit more of a proven track record, though. Ada is where it's at.
Tried It (Score:2)
Linux - A democracy of intellect (Score:2)
I do love the Linux story. It's a human one, a craft.
Reminds me of plumbers, the good ones. Never doubt the value of plumbing, it's a foundation of civilisation. If you've got clean water in your tap and somewhere to post the dirty, you have arrived at a place a few billion ancestors never enjoyed.
Plumbers, like all trades are "hands on", the good ones have an intimate understanding of the hardware. Rust is a compiler with an added degree of separation from the hardware to the ancestors of Linux. I guess th
I don't see the allure of Rust for C programmers (Score:2)
I stopped using Rust because the compiler is an unmitigated pain in the ass. I'm not a 5-year-old. I know damn well when something is safe. If I have to tag everything unsafe to access memory in an optimal way, then what is Rust bringing to the table other than frustration? I moved over to Zig, which is much C-like, produces faster, smaller, and arguably just as safe binaries, and also happens to support C-FFI and cross-compilation out of the box. There is literally no advantage Rust has over Zig for C prog
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably Zig isnt faster , rather Zig and Rust produce binaries of similar performance. However , Zig is the highest paid programming language...
https://blog.logrocket.com/com... [logrocket.com]