← Back to context

Comment by arp242

10 months ago

I am aware. Doesn't mean it's not an option, or even a bad idea. Or maybe there is a third option; I don't know.

By the way: I don't agree with Hellwig, insofar I can judge things, I'm just saying his opinion is valid, and that "Linus agreed on Rust, so therefore we can merge this patch" is not really a valid argument.

27 comments

arp242

Reply
Tuna-Fish  10 months ago

It's just really, really dumb to both a) have rust drivers in the kernel and b) not merge this patch. It's just obviously stupid.

If you start with the assumption of a), there are no valid technical challenges to merging it. It's just better for everyone. Before Hellwig put his foot down as "not merging because rust sucks", he made a series of technical arguments against the patch, which were all transparently bullshit. It was those arguments that really raised such a furor, instead of all the other ways some C devs have disdained rust in the kernel in the past, because they were obviously made in bad faith. And when he was called out for them, he just went full "no rust in kernel".

  • arp242  10 months ago

    > Before Hellwig put his foot down as "not merging because rust sucks"

    He didn't say this at all. He explicitly and repeatedly said he has no problems with Rust as a language.

    And you can't just assert "there are no valid technical reasons". Just because you don't agree with the objections, or even think they're dumb, doesn't mean you can just dismiss them and start ascribing bad faith motives.

    • Tuna-Fish  10 months ago

      > He didn't say this at all.

      Okay, sorry. He just said there should be no rust in the kernel.

      You can ascribe bad faith motivations when someone presents technical objections that are already fully answered in the patch that was submitted, and when this is pointed out, they admit that, but don't retract their objections.

      The original objections are specifically not a case of differing values or design ideas. They are nonsensical, the equivalent of 1 = 2.

      9 replies →