Linux

10229 readers

835 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

Rust For Linux Kernel Co-Maintainer Formally Steps Down (www.phoronix.com)

submitted 1 day ago by cm0002@suppo.fi to c/linux@programming.dev

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Alex Gaynor recently announced he is formally stepping down as one of the maintainers of the Rust for Linux kernel code with the removal patch now queued for merging in Linux 6.19.

Alex Gaynor was one of the original developers to experiment with Rust code for Linux kernel modules. He's drifted away from Rust Linux kernel development for a while due to lack of time and is now formally stepping down as a listed co-maintainer of the Rust code. After Wedson Almeida Filho stepped down last year as a Rust co-maintainer, this now leaves Rust For Linux project leader Miguel Ojeda as the sole official maintainer of the code while there are several Rust code reviewers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world -13 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

If only there were a few alternatives to Rust for system development with a syntax that isn't a marriage of flesh between OCaml and C. Unfortunately none exists, because if I say otherwise, rustacerans will accuse me of "FUDposting", and some will even try to dig up some dirt about me, to ruin my life and to ultimately force me off the web, because shame is good, except if they're the target of said shame.

So we're left with a language that:

Was marketed as a functional programming language until people started to "FUDpost" about how functional programming has its own issues (optimization, etc.), so the Rust team quickly tried to course correct and market it as a "multi paradigm" language. It is "FUD" if you ask why it's still const by default. If only Oracle found out about this tactic, to market Java as a "multi paradigm programming language", because you can just "opt out from OOP aspects", then tell its usiers that "packaging classes are just good practice".
Makes many optimizations very ugly if not impossible.
Makes memory unsafe operations ugly, to "disintensivise the programmer from them".
Has a pretty toxic userbase, which is only being called out by Lunduke-style toxic morons with anti-woke brainrot, and for the wrong reasons. No, the problem isn't that many people in the Rust community are often trans, and that the code of conduct aren't a selection of Bible-verses, but that a portion of Rust users weaponize callouts, with this callout weaponization actually coming from 4chan and other sites that pioneered networked harassment.

[–] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 9 points 5 hours ago

I'm surprised that you didn't mention Zig. It seems to me to be much more popular than either C3 or D's "better C" mode.

It is “FUD” if you ask why it’s still const by default.

I'd be curious if you could show any examples of people asking why Rust is const by default being accused of spreading "FUD". I wasn't able to find any such examples myself, but I did find threads like this one and this one, that were both quite amiable.

But I also don't see why it would be an issue to bring up Rust's functional-programming roots, though as you say the language did change quite a lot during its early development, and before release 1.0. IIRC, the first compiler was even implemented in OCaml. The language's Wikipedia page goes into more detail, for anyone interested. Or you could read this thread in /r/rust, where a bunch of Rust users try to bury that sordid history by bringing it to light

Makes memory unsafe operations ugly, to “disintensivise the programmer from them”.

From what I've seen, most unsafe rust code doesn't look much different compared to safe rust code. See for example the Vec implementation, which contains a bunch of unsafe blocks. Which makes sense, since it only adds a few extra capabilities compared to safe rust. You can end up with gnarly code of course, but that's true of any non-trivial language. Your code could also get ugly if you try to be extremely granular with unsafe blocks, but that's more of a style issue, and poor style can make code in any language look ugly.

Has a pretty toxic userbase

At this point it feels like an overwhelming majority of the toxicity comes from non-serious critics of Rust. Case in point, many of the posts in this thread

[–] camdog2000@ttrpg.network 4 points 8 hours ago

I can tell you got filtered.