zlacker

>>rvz+(OP)
>And the reality is that there are no absolute guarantees. Ever. The "Rust is safe" is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety. Never has been. Anybody who believes that should probably re-take their kindergarten year, and stop believing in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus.

I thought that he had apologised and regretted being hostile in comments. Apparently not. Not that I have much of an issue with ranty colorful language, but you need to also be right and have a legitimate cause to pull it off...

The point he makes is BS. "the reality is that there are no absolute guarantees. Ever" Yeah, DUH! The compiler could have bugs and soundness issues for example.

The point is you don't need "absolute guarantees" just "way safer and which dozens more classes of issues discovered automatically" is already enough. The other guy didn't write about "absolute guarantees". He said "WE'RE TRYING to guarantee the absence of undefined behaviour". That's an aim, not a claim they've either achieved it, or they can achieve it 100%

>Even "safe" rust code in user space will do things like panic when things go wrong (overflows, allocation failures, etc). If you don't realize that that is NOT some kind of true safely, I don't know what to say.

Well, if Linus doesn't realize this is irrelevant to the argument the parent made and the intention he talked about, I don't know what to say...

>>coldte+a9
Why are so many people criticizing Linus? This post strikes me as relatively moderate.

Other software dictators do exactly the same, but in a more underhanded and bureaucratic manner, which is worse. Yet their disciples call them "benevolent".

I can deal with Linus, but not with the latter. Linus strikes me as not being really serious or vindictive. It's just a colorful way of expressing himself.

>>ukweld+ca
because people of modern age have to destroy everything's good, to feel better about themselves, without having to actually be good.

>>people+Td
Sort of how Linus pisses on Rust with a not-actually-good argument?

>>coldte+4l
Linus is not pissing on Rust though, his argument is about panic in Kernel code.

Why people feel attacked by Linus words is a mystery to me.

>>people+DJ
Not sure how mysterious it can be when he opens with a rant like:

  And the *reality* is that there are no absolute guarantees.  Ever. The "Rust is safe" is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety. Never has been. Anybody who believes that should probably re-take their kindergarten year, and stop believing in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus.

This is needlessly talking down to competent developers as if they are deluded children. It's also not the only instance of it in the linked message. He would be far better off just going straight into the technical differences between what he is willing to permit in his kernel vs. what the Rust-oriented developers seek.