365
'Maybe the problem is you' ... Linus Torvalds wades into Linux kernel Rust driver drama (www.theregister.com)
submitted 7 months ago by ray@lemmy.ml to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
117 comments fedilink hide all child comments
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] sith@lemmy.zip 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

My gut tells me that any benefits of adding Rust is massively negated by the addition of a second language.

If one wants to write Rust, there is always Redox and probably a bunch of other kernels.

I like Rust, but it's for sure an over hyped language. In a year or two, people will push for Zig, Mojo or some new pure and polished functional low level language. Maybe a Scheme or a Lisp? That seems to be what the cool kids use nowadays.

Or maybe we'll just replace the kernel with an AI that generates machine code according with what should be your intention.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago

C'mon man, this is just a textbook fallacious slippery slope argument. Rust isn't some brand new language whose stable release was less than a year ago, it's over a decade old now. Scheme and Lisp are interpreted languages for God's sake, it's borderline* impossible to use them for kernel programming.

Also I'm pretty sure the whole point of the Rust project that all this drama is centered around is to keep Rust code separate from the kernel. From what I understand the whole point is to maintain Rust bindings to the kernel API as a separate project, so that if developers want to write a driver in Rust, they can without having to rewrite those bindings themselves. But the kernel code itself will still be all C code. Now I'm not a kernel developer, and the last time I wrote a driver was for my operating systems class in university over a decade ago, so take that with a grain of salt.

* I say borderline because anything is possible with code if you're creative enough, but anyone trying to submit Scheme or Lisp code to the Linux kernel is gonna get laughed off the Internet

[-] sith@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 months ago

I don't think you get my point.

Of course I don't mean that you should introduce Lisp or Scheme into the Linux kernel. However, I don't rule out anything when it comes to the future of programming. Kernel programming isn't that special. If you need to make a scheduler, dynamic memory manager or an interpreter, as part of the kernel, because it solves your problem, you do it. Maybe you want the kernel to generate thread optimised FPGA and micro code on the fly? And this is done with some kind of interpreter. Who knows.

My point is that it's probably a bad idea introduce any new language into the kernel. A new backwards compatible version of memory safe c might be a good idea though. If it can be done.

Haven't touched the Linux kernel in 10+ years, but my guess is that a good approach is to write a new micro kernel in Rust. One that is compatible with most existing drivers and board support packages. And of course it has to maintain the userspace ABI and POSIX yada yada. Probably what the Redox project aims for, but I don't know.

Keeping the Rust bindings in a separate project might be unnecessary though. I'm sceptic about allowing upstream drivers written in Rust just because I find that there is such a great value in sticking to one language. I also know that many kernel developers are getting old and it gets harder to learn new languages the older you get. Especially if the language comes with a decent share of sugar and bling (the minimalism of lisp and c is valuable).

If there is a problem finding driver developers that want to write C code, then sure. But breaking the flow of the senior maintainers/developers likely isn't worth it. Unless they ask for it.

And also, I really haven't been following this Rust in the Linux kernel debate.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] yozul@beehaw.org 6 points 7 months ago

I dunno, people have been saying Rust will go away in a year or two for, like, five years now. This feels different to me. I could easily be wrong, but I don't think it's just another fad language.

[-] sith@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 months ago

I'm not saying that Rust will go away.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] buwho@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago

linux is amazing. i dunno what rust is, but ive been using linux a long time. i appreciate the modern comfort. but whatever happens happens. itll still be good.

[-] urquell@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago

If code doesn't change quickly enough, it rusts. Linus makes sure that doesn't happen

[-] droplet6585@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago

Can someone distill the good faith argument against rust? Is there one?

[-] shortrounddev@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Syntax ugly

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] NightShot@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Could someone explain the backpedalling if rust is more secure ?

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] ToxicWaste@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

that article is horrible to read! every paragraph starts with quotation, but then never closes it😵

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
365 points (100.0% liked)

Open Source

41134 readers
473 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
kevincox@lemmy.ml
CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml