Ah, yes, Rust would be good for any performance-sensitive code or modules needed. I haven't kept up to date with C++ since pre-'10, but I'd imagine that it's easier to learn Rust than the latest version of C++ at this point.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 08:06, Michele Sciabarra <mich...@sciabarra.com> wrote: > > Ok guys, I give up with rust. Will use Go. > > > -- > Michele Sciabarra > mich...@sciabarra.com > > ----- Original message ----- > From: "Markus Thömmes" <markusthoem...@apache.org> > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > Subject: Re: Using Rust for the KnativeWhisk controller > Date: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 9:16 AM > > +1 to all arguments. Rust's barrier of entry is considerably higher than > that of Scala even. As much as I like the language's design, from a > community attraction point-of-view we should absolutely opt for go, > especially for things that are built around Kubernetes. > > That's of course to be taken with a grain of salt: If we have a use-case > that requires the performance characteristics of Rust (especially that of a > lacking garbage collector), we should absolutely choose for the > implementation. Implementing a controller however sounds like a > business-as-usual REST talk-to-a-database thingy and Go is perfect for that. > > Am Di., 16. Juli 2019 um 08:53 Uhr schrieb Martin Henke <martin.he...@web.de > >: > > > Michele, > > > > Two thoughts: > > > > 1) For writing a controller in Knative I recommend to choose Go instead > > of Rust (even when I like Rust more). > > With Go you can leverage the fantastic Operator SDK from Redhat which > > makes writing controllers fairly > > simple (I had my first one up and running in under an hour). > > Link: https://github.com/operator-framework/operator-sdk > > > > The getting started guide is a good starting point: > > https://github.com/operator-framework/getting-started > > > > It also addresses the lifecycle of an controller with the Lifecycle > > Manager: > > https://github.com/operator-framework/operator-lifecycle-manager > > (I have not yet used this myself) > > > > > > 2) I think we should clearly separate the Knative work from Openwhisk and > > stay there with a strict Scala only policy > > (with the existing exceptions). > > Introducing more languages would in my opinion lead to maintenance > > problems and the waste of build up skills. > > > > Regards, > > Martin > > > > > > > On 15. Jul 2019, at 11:58, Michele Sciabarra <mich...@sciabarra.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > In my efforts to work a Kanative Whisk, I reached the point where I have > > a kit with tekton-pipelines, knatve-serving building an actionlooop based > > runtime. Now I need to implement a controller, in order to use the existing > > wsk tooling. > > > > > > I know there is a prototype kwsk implementation made by redhat, written > > in Go but looks like it is obsolete and unfinished, and to the best of my > > knowledge, abandoned. > > > > > > I would like to resume the effort of writing an updated controller. I > > actually already have a prototype using the Julia language. Julia is really > > awesome, Python simplicity and Go speed, but I feed the community would > > disagree on using Julia. Of course if I am wrong... let me know because > > that would be my preferred choice. > > > > > > However, I feel that, given our Scala background, Rust would be a much > > better choice for the KnativeWhisk controller. So I propose to use Rust > > for the KwhiskController. > > > > > > What does the community think of the proposal? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Michele Sciabarra > > > mich...@sciabarra.com > > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
