Reminder that Linux's decision to write an entire kernel in C and not a mix of C and assembly was just as controversial back then as Rust vs C is now. The pro-assembly programmers used many similar arguments as the anti-Rust programmers (it's bloated, it's too high level for the kernel, it has a complicated compiler, it's just a pointless abstraction over what's actually happening at the processor level, it's not mature enough, if you were competent in assembly you wouldn't need to use C, if assembly is too difficult for you then you shouldn't even be developing a kernel, etc). Now Linux is hailed as one of the pioneer software projects that led the switch from assembly to C for kernel level code.
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
193 points (98.5% liked)
Linux
50208 readers
1325 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
was linux ever in majority assembly? was the C thing added on by a separate team?
Anyone who replies to this with "any mistakes in C code are the developer's fault" should be banned from the kernel. I know someone't going to try it.
"We don't need TCAS on commercial airliners because any colisions are the pilot/controller's fault"
So true
Maintenance. The concern is maintenance.
Greg is a great level head in the kernel regarding rust, at least among the senior maintainers. I hope he can convince some of the more hostile maintainers to accept the new status quo that includes Rust in the Kernel at all levels.
Took way too long, but finally some support from the top leadership for rust?
Linus has also declared Rust as basically inevitable before, since more and more kernel maintainers retire and not many young devs learn C anymore, at least not to a proficiency where you can handle kernel development.
Phoronix's comment section is as toxic as it can be, but i found out a comment that puts into words better similar thoughts I have on this:
How about the Linux Foundation forks over a few million to fund the thing in its name?
They could hire more engineers, more testing, more QA. Yet they don't.
And while at it, maybe Mozilla or any other stakeholder with resources could revamp Rust to produce lightweight binaries, have a stable compiler and for it to be way quicker in compilation?
No? Okay, but then why do all these foundations/organizations exist? And why do they hold such vast amounts of resources, while extorting the projects they claim to help?
I'd only add that it's not only about the kernel - they are home to a project that could be in the medium-long term a serious alternative to Google's blink/Apple's webkit, and of course an alternative to the hegemony of Chrome, but they actively chose to just not give them a single cent. Yes I am talking about Servo.
People like to be on commitees to feel important. The issue becomes what their role should actually be. Unfortunately donors end up on commitees and part of the decision making process. They have their own motivations and incompetencies.
revamp Rust to produce lightweight binaries, have a stable compiler and for it to be way quicker in compilation
It really isn't that simple though. Rust's compiler isn't stable because the language itself is still being improved. This type of thing will only improve as adoption increases and real-world problems get ironed out. You can't just throw money and devs at it and expect the problem to be solved.
It's also not like the developers don't care about compile time, but the nature of the language (strict compiler checks which catch things before runtime) will inherently lead to something slower that other languages' compilers. There are probably still improvements they can make, but it's not as simple as just deciding to rewrite/revamp it and expecting massive speedups.
Every time Rust takes forever to compile something, I picture in my mind it checking every possible edge case and buffer vulrnability I didn't check and suddenly I'm a lot more okay with how long it takes.
You can't just throw money and devs at it and expect the problem to be solved.
Then nobody will throw money at any project at all, because everything eventually will be solved by "magick".
Destinating more resources to that quickens and makes better that process, though, incentivating people to work on it and test it.
It's not magic, it's adoption rates. I'm not saying the money or resources are useless, but as it is right now, I think more people would benefit from actually trying to use rust in more large-scale projects (like R4L, windows, android, redox, servo, etc.) and using that experience to inform actual language development. I don't think it makes sense to do a full revamp of the compiler until projects like those are actually proven. In the meantime it makes more sense to allocate funding/dev resources to those projects (or at least the open source ones)
That's one of the reasons why you get delayed or cancelled, over-budget projects that go nowhere. ( another big one is corruption and general financial shenanigans ).
if you throw a lot of money at a problem/project that doesn't have reasonable management and competent understanding of where that money could work efficiently then you're asking for trouble.
Destinating more resources to that quickens and makes better that process, though, incentivating people to work on it and test it.
That is charmingly naive, in my experience.
I'm not saying more money wouldn't help, I'm saying throwing money at it isn't generally a stand-alone solution, which is what i think the person you were replying to was trying to say.
I'm not a programmer so i don't have much skin in the game, but from how it's described it seems like a good idea to me and rust seems like a solid language to me. I do understand the concern from devs who don't know rust and don't want to learn it, but i guess that also depends on how much they would actually have to interact with it.