Most complaint against Rust is fucking culture war, not technical, so people who actually have technical concerns with Rust are being lumped together with Brian Lunduke and others.
I think it’s silly to be against Rust code in the kernel because it’s not C or whatever. Though I do agree with the criticisms of Rust projects shipping with the MIT license instead of GPL.
Somehow yes. It started as reasonable criticism but people like Brian Lunduke managed to interpret C and X as “conservative” while rust and wayland as “progressive.”
He was even criticising rust projects for “having too many people with anime profile pictures” in one of my youtube recommendations.
Rust was among the first more well known projects, which adopted a Code of Conduct, then grifters in the OSS community cried censorship, which made people flock to it to “own the right”. Even if I think it’s an overrated marriage of flesh between C and OCaml, Code of Conducts are generally a good thing, and the people who really like toxic callouts arre more of an anomaly, and likely were flown there due to the culture war stuff.
People hate rust because of its fences/training wheels, not because it’s “woke”
…actually I just saw someone in this very comment section ranting about “soydevs”, you’re not wrong. But there are valid complaints too! Some of us are just old and think our computers should do whatever we tell them up to and including “shit yourself and catch fire”
But there are valid complaints too! Some of us are just old and think our computers should do whatever we tell them up to and including “shit yourself and catch fire”
I agree with this, but I think rust is fine here. It has unsafe as a keyword that let’s you do the breaking stuff, it just makes sure you know you’re doing something dangerous and makes it stand out for code reviewers
Oh no, I bet you there’s a fair few who think rust is woke and deeply connecting with programming socks --> it should be cancelled.
IMO it’s also an ideological fit for the current right wingers who connect Rust to progress and use progress as an insult. Since they can’t fight Rust on its merits, they have to make up whatever argument they can that fits their narrative.
That’s why I prefer D’s approach for memory safety. Sure, it’s not as well featured as Rust’s, however it has “fat pointers”, three levels of safety, and kind of optional garbage collector.
Most complaint against Rust is fucking culture war, not technical, so people who actually have technical concerns with Rust are being lumped together with Brian Lunduke and others.
I think it’s silly to be against Rust code in the kernel because it’s not C or whatever. Though I do agree with the criticisms of Rust projects shipping with the MIT license instead of GPL.
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/im-shocked-the-rust-community-is-pushing-an-mit-licensed-rust-rewrite-of-gnu-coreutils/126110
I hate the culture war stuff. I also hate that the Rust core utils rewrite was done under an MIT license instead of GPL.
A gain of memory safety with a poison pill of permissive licensing is no gain at all.
How is MIT poisonous? It’s still FOSS
Until it isn’t. MIT is permissive and allow to use code for commercial or military use. GPL work have to stay GPL
That free work for corpo
I’ve worked with a lot of devs. I’ve seen a group of devs invent a new language to keep from having to learn a new off-the-shelf language.
I’ve seen devops rip out entire working systems and work on replacement python for months rather than coming up to speed on existing stuff.
It honestly think a lot of it comes from the poor perception of starting over from scratch on someone else’s code vs on your own code.
As in Rust = gay kind of culture war? I’m so OOTL. Please help
Somehow yes. It started as reasonable criticism but people like Brian Lunduke managed to interpret C and X as “conservative” while rust and wayland as “progressive.”
He was even criticising rust projects for “having too many people with anime profile pictures” in one of my youtube recommendations.
Rust was among the first more well known projects, which adopted a Code of Conduct, then grifters in the OSS community cried censorship, which made people flock to it to “own the right”. Even if I think it’s an overrated marriage of flesh between C and OCaml, Code of Conducts are generally a good thing, and the people who really like toxic callouts arre more of an anomaly, and likely were flown there due to the culture war stuff.
People hate rust because of its fences/training wheels, not because it’s “woke”
…actually I just saw someone in this very comment section ranting about “soydevs”, you’re not wrong. But there are valid complaints too! Some of us are just old and think our computers should do whatever we tell them up to and including “shit yourself and catch fire”
I agree with this, but I think rust is fine here. It has
unsafeas a keyword that let’s you do the breaking stuff, it just makes sure you know you’re doing something dangerous and makes it stand out for code reviewersOh no, I bet you there’s a fair few who think rust is woke and deeply connecting with programming socks --> it should be cancelled.
IMO it’s also an ideological fit for the current right wingers who connect Rust to progress and use progress as an insult. Since they can’t fight Rust on its merits, they have to make up whatever argument they can that fits their narrative.
I feel like you either didn’t read my comment or have been smoking a little too much weed lol
That’s why I prefer D’s approach for memory safety. Sure, it’s not as well featured as Rust’s, however it has “fat pointers”, three levels of safety, and kind of optional garbage collector.
The whole reason I use Linux is to shit myself and catch fire.
Fucking up is part of the fun. Y’all remember when computers used to be fun?