So You Want to Rust the Linux Kernel?

Re:So You Want to Rust the Linux Kernel? by zozbot234 on Monday October 11, 2021 @03:50PM (#28832261)

> could have achieved its core goals --- memory safety and robust concurrency --- as a dialect of C++ instead

The C++ Standard committee disagree with you - and not for lack of trying, either. The C++ Core Guidelines are the best they could come up with, and these are not rigorously enforced unlike the safe subset of Rust.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:So You Want to Rust the Linux Kernel? by quotemstr on Monday October 11, 2021 @09:26PM (#28835005)

Are you talking about [1]? All that paper says is that you can't add a borrow checker to C++ as a library feature. You can add such a thing as a language feature.

I hate that paper. People misrepresent it all the time.

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSt2VB1zQAJ6JDMa...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:So You Want to Rust the Linux Kernel? by steveklabnik on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @01:04PM (#28842179)

They are talking about https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:So You Want to Rust the Linux Kernel? by quotemstr on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @01:11PM (#28842277)

What do you mean? The core guidelines weren't an attempt to add lifetimes to C++.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:So You Want to Rust the Linux Kernel? by steveklabnik on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @01:39PM (#28842614)

Several aspects of it pertain to lifetimes https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:So You Want to Rust the Linux Kernel? by quotemstr on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @02:47PM (#28843493)

Nevertheless, the core guideline were not an attempt to add lifetimes to C++ at a syntactic level. AFAIK, that's never been tried, and I think the effort would be a valuable complement to Rust.

[ Parent | on HN ]