Comment

Comment on Linux royalty backs adoption of Rust for kernel code

Moving from C to C++ would also not solve any real problem. C++ of course adds OOP which I think can be nice (not everyone agrees with this!) but it also adds an insane amount of language complexity and instability. Mentally reasoning about C code is hard, reasoning about C++ code is nearly impossible.

Rust however brings a novel solution to classes of problems like ownership and mutability with the borrow checker. It’s now accepted to be a great tool for writing high performance code while preventing a substantial amount of common, but often subtle, bugs from slipping through. It’s not arbitrarily the first non-C code to be accepted in the kernel. And it’s used in other operating systems like Android and Windows already.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
In general, for me, Rust > C > C++.

I’ve heard people say that C is like a loaded and cocked revolved, and if you’re not careful, you could blow your foot off, whereas C++ is like a loaded and cocked sawed-off shotgun, and if you’re not careful, you could blow your leg off.

source
- FarceOfWill@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  C++ is a semi automatic shotgun with 200 barrels point in all directions.
  
  source
  - gedhrel@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Whilst it’s gotten a lot better in the -17 and -20 iterations, the fact that there was recently a doorstop book published solely on the subject of C++ initialisation semantics is pretty telling.
    
    I really like what Herb Sutter’s doing around cppfront; I still wouldn’t use C++ unless I absolutely had to.
    
    source
mesamunefire@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I think it would also bring in more developers. So more changes would eventually make its way into the kernel.

source
brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Mostly this ^.

There’s just not really demand for C++ in the kernel; that’s not the case with Rust.

source