Ah rust being mentioned on phoronix, im sure the comment section wont be full of deranged lunatics.
Ah
rust being mentioned onphoronix, im sure the comment section wont be full of deranged lunatics.ftfy
I did enjoy this comment:
C code with a test suite that is run through valgrind is more trustworthy than any Rust app written by some confused n00b who thinks that writing it in Rust was actually a competitive advantage. The C tooling for profiling and checking for memory errors is the best in the business, nothing else like it.
In other words, a small subset of C code is more trustworthy than Rust code written by “some confused n00b”. Which I would argue is quite the feather in Rust’s cap
You were right, it’s an entertaining if a bit unsettling comment section
I liked the comment where the guy said sooner we will add gender and class consciousness to the kernel then someone chimed in unironically agreeing this was the direction. I guess Marx was wrong, its not socialism that leads to communism its rust in the linux kernel.
Do you mean the “this is where we’re headed” comment? That’s not agreeing with the direction.
"You joke about this now… But this is really where we’re headed, isn’t it? " Thats agreeing that we’re heading in the direction. Which is absurd.
Oh, you just mean he believes that’s the future, not that he agrees with it or thinks it’s a good thing.
yeah but thinking thats the future of the linux kernel just because some rust was added to the kernal is insane. It doesnt matter if he thinks its good or bad.
Rust has many valid reason to critique for.
It’s a functional-first language. Yes, you can opt out from it with constant
let muts. But it is like that on purpose, to make it uncomfortable to write procedural code, so you’re incentivized to use less variables. In fact, when I first heard about Rust, it advertized itself not through memory safety, but through the functional programming paradigm, and its evangelists called any kind of memory mutation a hazard, not just the out-of-bound kind. This also makes it extremely obtuse to write games with.Calling Rust not a functional programming language is like calling Java not an object-oriented programming language, because you can still technically make procedural code with it, you only need to write packaging classes for your code, and still can set globals, via
static. The existence of even harder OOP languages, where even the base types like integers are classes themselves could also be used to call Java “not an OOP language, but a general purpose language with OOP features”.It’s also quite hard to opt-out from its memory safety features, resulting in a very ugly code. And evangelists like to trash-talk some of its memory safe competitors, like calling D not a memory safe language, because it’s more of an opt-in feature.
However, thanks to Brian Lunduke and his anti-woke brainrot, all the critique we get is “code of conduct bad”, “pronouns bad”, “christian extremism masquerading as common sense good”, “elitism and hierarchies good”. Almost no critique of the language itself. Which is bad IMHO. (Can someone suggest me a substack-like place, where I can publish articles, and also not ran by nazis?)
IMO, variables being const/immutable by default is just good practice codified in the language and says nothing about Rust being “functional-first”:
Most variables are only written once, and then read one or more times, especially so when you remove the need for manually updated loop counters. Because of that, it results in less noisy/more readable code when you only need to mark the subset of variables are going to be updated later, rather than the inverse. Moreover, when variables are immutable by default, you cannot forget to mark them appropriately, unlike when they are mutable by default
Incorrect.
Rust is not a functional, let alone functional-first language.