rust-os-comparison

https://github.com/flosse/rust-os-comparison Writing a toy one? Sure. Writing a real one? Who's gonna write all the drivers and the myriad other things? And the claim was not that it's "so much easier", but that it is so much easier to write it in a secure way. Which claim is true. But it's still a complex and hard program. (And don't even get started on browsers, it's no accident that even Microsoft dropped maintaining their own browser).

> Its way too cumbersome to write entire OS in it Not at all. See https://www.redox-os.org/ and many more: https://github.com/flosse/rust-os-comparison > all the example projects like AWS Firecracker end up with tons of unsafes. That's a good thing. With rust you are explicit about unsafe. > Basically a more expansive and possibly ML powered valgrind can easily offer the same memory safety as Rust does, without the penalty of slower development and efficiency hits It is apparent that you have no experience from rust, and I wonder if you have used valgrind much too, as you seem unaware about the huge overhead from running your app through valgrind. Rust's error messages are precise, while valgrind is a crapshow to work with, as you should know since you mentioned it? > so Rust adoption is "unstable" i.e its just a nice improvement but not

It might seem like that if your only exposure to Rust is the comment you replied to. https://github.com/flosse/rust-os-comparison

> "the Rust people" There is no such thing. There are people developing a complete OS in Rust: https://github.com/flosse/rust-os-comparison There are people interested in making the Linux kernel more memory safe using Rust. And from what I am observing they aren't interested in a hard fork and are looking for collaboration. These are different populations. Contrary to what Theodore Ts'o is ignorantly saying, Rust is not a religion.

It's an interesting question, but I suspect that the technical attributes of Rust as it exists today play a much larger part in Torvalds's choices than does its origin many years ago. In particular, Rust is less error-prone than C, rather than more so (as is arguably the case for C++), and it does not require the importation of a large runtime into the kernel. And, unlike for example Lua or Scheme, a number of kernels have already been written in Rust, some of which are already fairly full-featured: https://github.com/flosse/rust-os-comparison