On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 08:41:24PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 9:27 AM Matthew Brost <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I hate cut off in thteads. > > > > I get it — you’re a Rust zealot. > > Cut off? Zealot? >
I appologize here I shouldn't type when I get annoyed. This the 2nd comment that pointing out difference between C and Rust which really wasn't direction I have hoping this thread would take. > Look, I got the email in my inbox, so I skimmed it to understand why I > got it and why the Rust list was Cc'd. I happened to notice your > (quite surprising) claims about Rust, so I decided to reply to a > couple of those, since I proposed Rust for the kernel. > Again my mistake. > How is that a cut off and how does that make a maintainer a zealot? > > Anyway, my understanding is that we agreed that the cleanup attribute > in C doesn't enforce much of anything. We also agreed that it is > important to think about ownership and lifetimes and to enforce the > rules and to be disciplined. All good so far. > > Now, what I said is simply that Rust fundamentally improves the > situation -- C "RAII" not doing so is not comparable. For instance, > that statically enforcing things is a meaningful improvement over > runtime approaches (which generally require to trigger an issue, and > which in some cases are not suitable for production settings). > I agree the static checking in Rust is a very nice feature. > Really, I just said Rust would help with things you already stated you > care about. And nobody claims "Rust solves everything" as you stated. > So I don't see zealots here, and insulting others doesn't help your > argument. I know, appologize. Matt > > Cheers, > Miguel
