Linux

I am not a programmer. If you showed me C code and called it Rust, or vice versa, I would probably not be able to tell the difference. As such I'm not going to focus on technical merits or demerits, I'll focus on what people say.

This is relevant:

• [Danilo Krummrich] What does "your code" mean? Duplicated in every driver?
• [Christoph Hellwig] Yes, interfaces to the DMA API should stay in readable C code and not in weird bindings so that it reminds greppable and maintainable.
• [DK] Rust drivers shouldn't use C APIs directly, but rather use an abstraction of the corresponding C API.
• [CH] Don't force me to deal with your shiny language of the day.
• [DK] Again, no one asks you to deal with or maintain this piece of Rust code.
• [CH] Maintaining multi-language projects is a pain I have no interest in dealing with. If you want to use something that's not C, be that assembly or rust you write to C interfaces and deal with the impedence mismatch yourself as far as I'm concerned.
• [DK] This is exactly what we're doing and proposing here, isn't it? // We wrote a single piece of Rust code that abstracts the C API for all Rust drivers, which we offer to maintain ourselves. // What else are you asking for?
• [DK] Since there hasn't been a reply so far, I assume that we're good with maintaining the DMA Rust abstractions separately. // Hence, the next version of this patch series will have the corresponding maintainer entry.

What I take from this interaction is that Hellwig is not really picking a bone against Rust; his main concern is introducing new languages into the kernel and reducing its maintainability. And IMO Krummrich's answer up to the second-to-last reply was really great - addressing the complain by highlighting that C developers won't need to bother with that chunk of Rust code. (That last reply was awful, though.)

Based on this interaction I think that I agree with 5714 in this thread, that Hellwig might be overreaching.

So far, so good. What Hector Martin is doing there is something else. He is not selling the merits of the project Rust4Linux, he's simply creating drama, by distorting Hellwig's position from "don't bring new languages into the kernel" into some sort of personal crusade against Rust.

And it's rather "curious" how he brings up the CoC as some sort of rubber stick to bash people with, but omits which part of the CoC Hellwig would allegedly have violated.

[@raulinbonn] @marcan He does use the proper name shortly afterwards, but calling it "the another language" instead of just Rust sounds already quite loaded and belittling really. As if trying not to even acknowledge its proper name and existence.

Relevant tidbit: "the another language" sounds like a word-by-word translation from German "die andere Sprache". It doesn't really sound dismissive in German (Hellwig is clearly a German speaker.)

"As if trying not to even acknowledge its proper name and existence." - okay... now the user is assuming = making shit up. It's perfectly possible that Hellwig simply didn't call it "Rust" to focus on the fact that his problem is not against Rust, but against a mixed language codebase - the complete opposite of what raulinbonn is assuming.