|
|
|
|
|
|
by DonaldPShimoda
547 days ago
|
|
|
> Rust isn't a "replacement for C" Hmm I think to clarify I would say that Rust _is_ intended as a replacement for C in general, but that this isn't how the Linux kernel developers are choosing to use it. As for why the kernel developers would choose Rust, I would think another one of the primary benefits is that the type system guarantees the absence of a wide class of memory-related errors that are prevalent in C, and this type system (as well as those of its predecessors) has been subjected to significant scrutiny by the academic community over the last couple of decades to help iron out problems. I suspect this is also part of why Rust has a relatively large and passionate community compared to other C alternatives. |
|
|
It is hard to get a full picture of how academic research influenced Rust and vice versa. Two examples:
- The use of linearity for tracking ownership in types has been known to academics but had never found its way into a mainstream language.
- researchers in programming language semantics pick Rust as a target of formalization, which was only possible because of design choices around type system. They were able to apply techniques that resulted from decades of trying to get a certified C. They have formalized parts of the standard library, including unsafe Rust, and found and fixed bugs.
So it seems fair to say that academic research on safety for C has contributed much to what makes Rust work today, and in ways that are not possible for C and C++ because these languages do not offer static guarantees where types Transport information about exclusive access to some part of memory.