zlacker

[return to "Rust in the NetBSD Kernel, and other odd decisions"]
1. akagus+bQ[view] [source] 2026-02-03 10:46:39
>>jaypat+(OP)
We need memory safety but Rust is not the answer.

It has no formal spec, changes too fast, depends on third party libraries that change faster than I can breath, and is controlled by a foundation that is controlled by big tech corps.

What could go wrong?

◧◩
2. budgef+Jz1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 15:23:24
>>akagus+bQ
> changes too fast

The core language has been static for ages, and breaking changes are handled by the edition system so you can use a modern compiler to build code on old syntax. Since the 1.0 release ten years ago there have been four editions.

It's absolutely not changing too fast

> depends on third party libraries that change faster than I can breath

No it doesn't. The standard library is already sufficient for a lot of work; and there is an unhosted version with a "core" version of that standard library which has zero dependencies.

Modern Rust, Java, Python, TypeScript etc. developers choose to use a lot of third party libraries; but that's only because the tooling and ecosystem are both good enough to facilitate that. Nothing about the language forces it.

◧◩◪
3. johnny+k03[view] [source] 2026-02-03 21:31:41
>>budgef+Jz1
the proof is right there in all the discussion about rust in the linux kernel too.
[go to top]