uecker

Cool! And I do think the world needs more C compilers. There is so much you could do with this language, but it needs to be disentangled from the C++ compiler behemoths. (yes, I now that there are oth…

I think this is nonsense.

I remember seeing Linux gaining some traction 15 year ago, and Ubuntu focusing on polishing the user experience (with initiatives such as fixing "One hundred paper cuts"), but then this chan…

I agree. My point was only that this hole can easily be patched in X as well. So the argument was essentially "we do not bother to patch it with X, so we must rewrite X".

Yes, but I think in the case of Wayland also management had other priorities, i.e. GUI for mobile and/or entertainment systems. But this is all ok, I think the main problem is that somehow too ma…

I am not sure what you saw, but on regular Linux processes of the user can spy on each other anyway. In any case, X had the concept of untrusted clients basically forever but nobody cared to invest e…

It isn't clear why any of this would require a rewrite.

This is cool. What X is really missing though is a little bit of love from the toolkit side, e.g. proper latency hiding using XCB, support for dis- and reconnect or support for moving windows to displ…

Not sure whether this is generally true. GCC appears to have similar optimizations and I personally find LLVM's code much more intimidating. But it is certainly true that LLVM seems to see more i…

The big new thing in C11 was atomics and threading.

I split to enforce encapsulation by defining interfaces in headers based on incomplete structure types. So it helps me with he conceptually separated module boundaries. Super fast compilation is ano…

My personal goal was to replace all of Microsoft in my life. I mostly achieved this 30 years ago with the help of a C program. Now I only have to use Microsoft products when other people I collaborate…

Regarding "restrict", I don't think one puts it everywhere, just for certain numerical loops which otherwise are not vectorized should be sufficient. FORTRAN seems even more dangerous t…

What I meant is that Rust has stricter aliasing rules which make some optimization possible without extra annotations, but this is balanced out by many other issues.

This is basically what many functional programming languages do. This always came with plausibly sounding claims that this allows so much better optimizations that this soon will surpass imperative pr…

Is it? You just add "restrict" where needed? https://godbolt.org/z/jva4shbjs

For your comments I get that you drank the Kool Aid, but I see no argument.

I also think that the largest factor is cultural. But my conclusion from this is not that one should import it with a new language while pretending achieving similar results is not possible otherwise.…

Writing without errors using other languages also doesn't work. And if you go towards formal verification (which also does not completely avoid errors), C has good tools.

But there are more than 2000 uses of "unsafe" even in the tiny amount of Rust use in the Linux kernel. And you would need to compare to C code where an equally amount of effort was done to …

There is a lot of science showing vaccines work. For Rust showing that it is better this is still lacking. And no Google's blog posts are not science.

There is no programming language better than C ;-) Just people not yet experienced enough to have learned this. (Just trolling you back)

The implementation itself being sound, yes. And yes, in Rust if you only use sound libraries (in combination), never use unsafe yourself and ignore the known defects in Rust, then it is also guarante…

You are right, I do not have a problem with Rust as a language nor with the kernel improving memory safety. My issue is solely with exaggerated claims and aggressive marketing of Rust. (And I am oper…

No, in the comment you reply to, I am using safe/unsafe in the Rust sense. E.g. signed overflow changed to trap avoids the UB. Also "If .. are implemented soundly" sounds harmless but s…

As long as the kernel will be developed, there will be CVEs - even with Rust. So at what point the number is so high that we should drop Rust and move to formal verification? And even then, there wil…

Yes, but this is the marketing bullshit I am calling out. "Safe Rust" != "Rust" and it is not "Safe Rust" which is competing with C it is "Rust".

Hey, it was my point that the number of CVEs is red herring. And no, I do not care or even believe what Google says. There are so many influencing factors.

You are saying the Rust bug in the kernel was impossible? How did it happen then? Come on guys.

The first misunderstanding is that safety is a property of the language or not. Rust marketing convinced many people that this is so, but C can be safe or unsafe. Fil-C shows that even all of C can be…