zlacker

It does make sense that the mainline developers don't know what "safe" means if you arbitrarily decide that "safe" means "memory safe" specifically and no other kind of "safe". A Haskell or Clojure developer could arbitrarily decide that "safe" means "safe from side effects," but unless that is clearly stated every time they engage in discourse with someone I wouldn't blame their discussion partners for not knowing what the developer means when they talk about some code being "safe".

I will agree with you that I dread Rust in the kernel, hopefully it can continue to exist there peacefully without people getting too hot under the collar about their personal hang-ups. For all its flaws Rust has an amazing value prop in the borrow checker and I would love for memory bugs to be eliminated for good.

>>tmtvl+(OP)
>if you arbitrarily decide that "safe" means "memory safe" specifically and no other kind of "safe".

This is how Rust has always defined it. Linus is specifically saying that "Rust people" don't understand what "safe" is but... they do, he doesn't. He could say "Rust defines it as X, the kernel needs Y" but he doesn't say that, he implies that Rust people just don't understand the word "safe" or that they think Rust is safer than it is, which is simply not true. As I said, quite ironic given history.

> I wouldn't blame their discussion partners for not knowing what the developer means when they talk about some code being "safe".

I mean, I would definitely blame them if they're also going to go on an insulting rant about their definition being wrong.

> without people getting too hot under the collar about their personal hang-ups

Impossible, in my opinion, until a ton of people retire.