Linus Torvalds muses about maintainer gray hairs and the next 'King of Linux'
Linus Torvalds muses about maintainer gray hairs and the next 'King of Linux'
Live from Vienna, it's the Linus Torvalds and Dirk Hohndel show! This time, they're talking real-time Linux, Rust, maintainer burnout, and succession planning.
In a candid keynote chat at the Linux Foundation's Open Source Summit Europe, Linux creator Linus Torvalds shared his thoughts on kernel development, the integration of Rust, and the future of open source.
You're viewing a single thread.
People need to chill with the language fanaticism. It’s one thing to make jokes and rip on a language for its quirks, but at the end of the day it’s just a language. If you truly don’t like it, don’t use it. I’m going to take a stab and guess that there is enough Linux kernel source to go around to both the c devs and rust devs. Just be glad they’re not trying to rewrite it in JavaScript. 😉
The problem is that the Linux kernel is monolithic so introducing rust into it does have certain repercussions about downstream compatibility between modules.
Right now the rust code in the kernel uses c bindings for some things and there's a not-insignificant portion of C developers who both refuse to use rust and refuse to take responsibility if the code they write breaks something in the rust bindings.
If it was pure C there would be no excuse as the standard for Linux development is that you don't break downstream, but the current zeitgeist is that Rust being a different language means that the current C developers have no responsibility if their code refactoring now breaks the rust code.
It's a frankly ridiculous stance to take, considering the long history of Linux being very strict on not breaking downstream code.
Rust developers are fine with C bindings changing, they just want that to be communicated to them by the C developers before they break.
A valid point. But the result is that over a pretty short period of time. These C developers will find delays in how quickly their code gets accepted into stable branches etc. So will be forced to make clear documentation into how the refactoring effects other elements calling the code. Or move on altogether.
Sorta advantageous to all and a necessary way to proceed when others are using your code.
Yeah sorry, c/c++ guy here.
I get that rust is the new shiny.
But now it means changing any potentially bound c function means I need to be fluent in a language I barely heard of before this year and has a syntax that makes c# look normal.
So, how about no?
You just have to document your code. Nothing more.
No, you just have to talk to the people who are fluent in rust.
I agree.
I grew up in the age of c/c++ and then Java. I get it: people hate it and it’s time to move on, but jeez, folx, chill. It will happen in time, and there’s no reason to go all civil warsy about it.
Things like this should not be rushed.
Rust zealots are on an unstoppable jihad.
Expecting suicide fork bombers any day now.
A JavaScript VM in the kernel is inevitable.
No, no. We're arguing for TypeScript
Typescript is always compiled down to JavaScript, so it’s kinda the same thing, but with “nicer” clothes.
Same for C and Rust tho?
Rust does not compile down to C. It generates LLVM bytecode the same as Clang does. They both produce native executables. You do not need a C compiler on your system to run Rust binaries.
Typescript produces JavaScript. You need a JavaScript interpreter to execute the output from TypeScript.
Not the same thing.
In before the pedants: clang is a c compiler, in that it compiles c code—but it also compiles other languages too. The distinction is that c, c++, rust, etc are compiled directly into byte code , whereas typescript is transpiled into another language (JavaScript) before it is executed. I’ll probably catch heat for this, but you can liken TypeScript to C++ because they both are supersets of another language.
C++ is actually not a superset of C, believe it or not.
I’ll admit I’m no c/c++ aficionado, but after a little research I see what you mean. Originally, C++ was a superset of C, but C has since diverged to include things that are not in C++. So we are both correct.
Not pure CSS?
No, a language is not just a language. I fact, it's a bunch of compilers. How many there are and the hardware they work on is what matters.
And as a matter of fact, rust isn't as much of an industry standard as C++ is.
I feel you’ve missed my entire point. My comment was not based on any technical merits of a language. It’s about a persons personal (religious) view of a tool they use to do their job.
I proudly use PHP, JavaScript, Java, Bash, and SQL. They have given me the means to make a long and fruitful 18+ year career. If my boss walked up to me tomorrow and said I needed to learn Python, or Rust, or even brainfuck, I’d learn it and be better for it.
Would it be as easy as my tried and true toolset? Not at first. I still remember the struggles I had when I was first learning my current toolset. It was frustrating. I remember cursing how stupid this or that was (especially PHP and JavaScript). But I learned, and now they’re not as frustrating — because I work with it, and not against it.
Look at JavaScript. Yeah it’s weird sometimes; if you don’t understand how it works. So people slap these transpiled languages or frameworks (like CoffeeScript or TypeScript or whatever) on top, trying to fix the things they think are wrong with JavaScript, and end up making a chaotic mess of the entire community. (And yes we could spend months arguing pros and cons of any merits of transpires and frameworks and why and what not, but then you’re still missing the point).
Anyway, the point is: if it works, then it’s good. Rust does not make Linux worse. If anything, it makes it better because it makes it more accessible to programmers who know Rust but not C. And that’s a good thing. It ensures the Linux kernel will be around longer than whomever ends up being the last C developer.
Those C developers bitching about how they don’t like the idea of rust in their kernel are akin to those old fogies yelling about those damned kids and their loud music or fashion sense.
Anyway, the point is: if it works, then it’s good. Rust does not make Linux worse. If anything, it makes it better because it makes it more accessible to programmers who know Rust but not C. And that’s a good thing. It ensures the Linux kernel will be around longer than whomever ends up being the last C developer.
Nobody is going to rewrite the entire kernel in rust. Parts of it are still written in assembler. It’s well over 30 million lines of code, 60% of it drivers. You can’t just go and rewrite that in a different language, hell it doesn’t even compile on the wrong C compiler version. You would need access to the hardware and run tests for every module you change at least or risk breaking stuff in production.
C programmers will always be around since they are necessary to keep the old code running on newer hardware. There are thousands of companies relying on the Linux and BSD kernels, for example every network router, switch etc.
I have nothing against rust, but there is always a danger of having too many programming languages used in the same project, especially if a error in one language can break something in a module written in the other. That’s just a nasty complication, especially for a time critical project like the kernel.