Re: It's not Rust, it's FreeBSD (and LLVM)

Correct take.  Rust is clearly not a mature ecosystem suitable to be an
Operating System platform, commercial or otherwise.

Yes DARPA is funding it, like it funds bioterrorism. It’s not the same
organization is was 30 years ago.

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 10:54 AM Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> wrote:

>
>
> > On 16 Sep 2024, at 15:57, Kim Shrier <kim@westryn.net> wrote:
> > I have stayed out of this conversation so far but I agree with Peter.
> > I compile all my kernels and ports from source.  I make local patches
> > when needed.  And while I have had some of my patshes accepted
> > into the FreeBSD source, I am not a committer.
>
> One of the outstanding advantages of FreeBSD versus the avian alternative
> is
> the ports system.
>
> There are many ports with meaningful compile time options. Typical
> conversation
> with an avian user: “Ok, to make this work you need to tweak this compile
> time
> option and compile” — and the answer is usually “whaaat? I don´t see that
> in the
> repo, can’t do”.
>
> > I have dabbled with rust, several times and I don’t like it.  It reminds
> > me too much of C++ and I have never liked that language.  These
> > languages appear to introduce too much complexity and their
> > runtime libraries change too much over time.
>
> I agree with you regarding the runtime changes. The C family has many
> problems,
> it's known since the 80’s.
>
> But an alternative must be stable enough to be included with the base
> system. And recent
> languages change way too much. And some changes are more aesthetic than
> useful, which
> in my opinion doesn’t justify breaking stuff.
>
> Memory safety is critical, it’s been way too long with buffer overflows and
> other nonsense that should not happen in a high level language, but
> developer sanity
> is also mandatory. Languages evolve, but there’s no need to evolve them
> yearly.
>
>
>
>
>
> Borja.
>
>
>