[uecker]

I don't think so. First, Rust did not come from nowhere, there were memory safe C variants before it that stayed closer to C. Second, I do not even believe that memory safety is that important that this trumps other considerations, e.g. the complexity of having two languages in the kernel (even if you ignore the complexity of Rust). Now, it is not my decision but Google's and other company's influence. But I still think it is a mistake and highlights more the influence of certain tech companies on open source than anything else.

[gpm]

> First, Rust did not come from nowhere, there were memory safe C variants before it that stayed closer to C.

Can you give an example? One that remained a low level language, and remained ergonomic enough for practical use?

> Second, I do not even believe that memory safety is that important that this trumps other considerations

In your previous comment you stated "a memory safe C would be far more useful. It is sad that not more resources are invested into this". It seems to me that after suggesting that people should stop working on what they are working on and work on memory safe C instead you ought to be prepared to defend the concept of a memory safe C. Not to simply back away from memory safety being a useful concept in the first place.

I'm not particularly interested in debating the merits of memory safety with you, I entered this discussion upon the assumption that you had conceded them.

[Jweb_Guru]

> Can you give an example? One that remained a low level language, and remained ergonomic enough for practical use?

They can't, of course, because there was no such language. Some people for whatever reason struggle to acknowledge that (1) Rust was not just the synthesis of existing ideas (the borrow checker was novel, and aspects of its thread safety story like Send and Sync were also AFAIK not found in the literature), and (2) to the extent that it was the synthesis of existing ideas, a number of these were locked away in languages that were not even close to being ready for industry adoption. There was no other Rust alternative (that genuinely aimed to replace C++ for all use cases, not just supplement it) just on the horizon or something around the time of Rust 1.0's release. Pretty much all the oxygen in the room for developing such a language has gone to Rust for well over a decade now, and that's why it's in the Linux kernel and [insert your pet language here] is not.

BTW, this is also why people being are incentivized to figure out ways to solve complex cases like Rcu-projection through extensible mechanisms (like the generic field projection proposal) rather than ditching Rust as a language because it can't currently handle these ergonomically. The lack of alternatives to Rust is a big driving factor for people to find these abstractions. Conversely, having the weight of the Linux kernel behind these feature requests (instead of e.g. some random hobbyist) makes it far more likely for them to actually get into the language.

[uecker]

I don't think there are many new ideas in Rust that did not exist previously in other languages. Lifetimes, non-aliasing pointers etc all certainly existed before. Rust is also only somewhat ready for industry use because suddenly some companies poured a lot of money in it. But it seems kind of random why they picked Rust. I do not think there is anything which makes it particularly good and it certainly has issues.

[Jweb_Guru]

"Lifetimes" didn't exist before. Region typing did, but it was not accompanied by a system like Rust's borrow checker, which is essential for actually creating a usable language. And we simply did not have the tooling required (e.g. step-indexed concurrent separation logic with higher order predicates) to prove a type system like that correct until around when Rust was released, either. Saying that this was a solved problem because Cyclone had region typing or because of MLKit, or people knew how to do ergonomic uniqueness types because of e.g. Clean, is the sort of disingenuous revisionist history I'm pushing back on.

> But it seems kind of random why they picked Rust. I do not think there is anything which makes it particularly good and it certainly has issues.

Like I said, they picked Rust because there was literally no other suitable language. You're avoiding actually naming one because you know this is true. Even among academic languages very few targeted being able to replace C++ everywhere directly as the language was deemed unsuitable for verification due to its complexity. People were much more focused on the idea of providing end to end verified proofs that C code matched its specification, but that is not a viable approach for a language intended to be used by regular industry programmers. Plenty of other research languages wanted to compete with C++ in specific domains where the problem fit a shape that made the safety problem more tractable, but they were not true general purpose languages and it was not clear how to extend them to become such (or whether the language designers even wanted to). Other languages might have thought they were targeting the C++ domain but made far too many performance sacrifices to be suitable candidates, or gave up on safety where the problem get hard (how many "full memory safety" solutions completely give up on data races for example? More than a few).

As a "C++ guy" Rust was the very first language that gave us what we actually wanted out of a language (zero performance compromises) while adding something meaningful that we couldn't do without it (full memory safety). Even where it fell short on performance or safety, the difference with other languages was that nobody said "well, you shouldn't care about that anyway because it's not that big a deal on modern CPUs" or "well, that's a stupid thing for a user to do, who cares about making that case safe?" The language designers genuinely wanted to see how far we cold push things without compromises (and still do). The work to allow even complex Linux kernel concurrent patterns (like RCU or sequence locking) to be exposed through safe APIs, without explicitly hardcoding the safety proofs for the difficult parts into the language, is just an extension of the attitude that's been there since the beginning.

[vacuity]

Rust isn't perfect, but it's basically the most viable language currently to be used in software such as Linux. It's definitely more of a C++ contender than anything else, but manages to be very usable in most other cases too. Rust 1.0 got a lot of things right with its compile-time features, and the utility of these features for "low-level" code has been demonstrated repeatedly. If a language is to replace Rust in the future, I expect it will take on many of the strengths of Rust. Moreover, Rust is impressive at becoming better. The work for Rust-for-Linux, alongside various other improvements (e.g. next trait solver, Polonius and place-based borrowing, parallel rustc frontend) show that Rust can evolve significantly without a huge addition in complexity. Actually, most changes should reduce its complexity. Yes, Rust has fumbled some areas, such as the async ecosystem, the macro ecosystem, and pointer-width integers, but its mistakes are also considered for improvement. The only unfortunate thing is the lack of manpower to drive some of these improvements, but I'm in it for the long run. Frankly, I'd say that if the industry had to use only one language tomorrow, Rust is the best extant choice. Really, I'm open to

And, it's really funny that GP criticizes Rust but doesn't acknowledge that of course blood, sweat, and tears have already gone into less drastic variants for C or C++. Rust itself is one of the outputs of the solution space! Sure, hype is always a thing, but Rust has quite demonstrated its utility in the free market of programming languages. If Rust was not as promising as it is, I don't see why all of these companies and Linus Torvalds would seriously consider it after all these years of experience. I can accept if C had a valid "worse is better" merit to it. I think C++, if anything, has the worst value-to-hype ratio of any programming language. But Rust has never been a one-trick pony for memory safety, or a bag of old tricks. Like any good language, it offers its own way of doing things, and for many people, its way is a net improvement.

[uecker]

For example cyclone, checked C, safe-c, deputy etc.

I agree that memory safety is useful, but I think the bigger problem is complexity, and Rust goes in the wrong direction. I also think that any investment into safety features - even if not achieving perfect safety - in C tooling would have much higher return of investment and bigger impact on the open-source ecosystem.