Re: The Case for Rust (in any system)

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 09:16:26AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Sep 6, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> > 
> > --------
> > Antranig Vartanian writes:
> > 
> >> My point is: yes, we do need better languages. Yes, we do need memory-safety
> >> and better tooling. But is Rust the answer?
> > 
> > Rust is what all the cool kids run right now, which they will deny,
> > claiming that Rust Is Simply Superior in replies to this email,
> > despite this prediction.
> > 
> > But as I said in an email a couple of days ago:  We should not
> > anoint some particular subset of programming languages or other.
> > 
> > We should answer the question "What is FreeBSD?" in a way which
> > does not contain a very short and controversial list of "approved
> > programming languages".
> > 
> > A pkg-based FreeBSD will allow the Rust people to write good code
> > for FreeBSD in Rust, and C, C++, Go, Lua, OBERON or Ada can freely
> > compete with them, without causing year-long slug-fests on the
> > mailing lists.
> > 
> > And if the INTERCAL people want to write FreeBSD kernel code in
> > INTERCAL, they get to maintain whatever it takes for their
> > compiler to grok the interfaces to the kernel, likewise for
> > any other language.
> > 
> > Poul-Henning
> > 
> > 
> > PS: I'm disappointed you did not mention Ada with SPARK.
> 
> +1
> 
> And back in the 80s, Ada was supposed to be the answer for safe coding language.

Isn't SPARK license non-FOSS and requires payments?