|
|
|
|
|
by epage
1643 days ago
|
|
First, I feel that is a bit of gate keeping. I've done a lot of systems work where Rust today would have been perfectly fine. We originally tried to track memory allocation errors but we gave up because we didn't test allocation failures and likely had large gaps in it and just found it wasn't worth the code bloat. We still checked for allocation failures for data transfer buffers but thats it. Second, Rust doesn't stop you from handling memory allocation errors. The standard library might fully support failable allocations but that doesn't stop you from using your own collections for that type of work. Third, this has been an item of interest for a long time in the Rust community and is actively being worked on as part of introducing Rust into Linux. |
|
Being ill-equipped to use or recover from allocation failures in such arenas bodes poorly for a systems language.