Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rust in Linux
Date: 23 Feb 2025 20:26:10 GMT
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <m21ej2FbohU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <5rfkrjdon6vurbuqfdfhemqnordp9ltcnd@4ax.com>
	<tcGuP.1563661$be92.1465486@fx16.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net kjdLp2qXM3LX1Ru1HxWalghH6OVh4NuGm+kjSahifvGUht/vsm
Cancel-Lock: sha1:40rYS7Kxs5Gkv9w2WWxzoboEFCY= sha256:IMDk2Qzbfhi0wSFEF03VhxikS9t9eyUavvBRlL/xG7c=
User-Agent: Pan/0.160 (Toresk; )
Bytes: 1598

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 09:24:23 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-02-22 4:25 p.m., chrisv wrote:
>> Some of the developers aren't enthused about Rust.  But I think that
>> Linus is, as usual, correct.  Rust is a better, inherently more secure,
>> language.
>> 
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/02/linux-leaders-pave-a-path-for-
rust-in-kernel-while-supporting-c-veterans/
> 
> Apparently, there is a tremendous performance hit from using Rust over
> C. I don't know if newer machines will even notice, but it would be
> problematic on older hardware.

Compilation is slower but I don't know about performance. The rust fans 
are very vocal and comparisons devolve into religious wars. Some are done 
by C programmers that aren't very good at writing rust. Others are done by 
rust programmers and are heavily salted with 'unsafe'.