• 0 Posts
  • 107 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle


  • Lol the out of memory error was a joke. A reference to that two people both trying to do the same thing will fill the heap since there’s unnecessary work.

    I tried to make a code joke but it failed.

    As far as what are they unwilling to release? Control. Ownership of any bit of the kernel they control

    kernel maintainer Ted Ts’o, emphatically interjects: “Here’s the thing: you’re not going to force all of us to learn Rust.”

    Lina tried to push small fixes that would make the C code “more robust and the lifetime requirements sensible,” but was blocked by the maintainer.

    DeVault writes. “Every subsystem is a private fiefdom, subject to the whims of each one of Linux’s 1,700+ maintainers, almost all of whom have a dog in this race. It’s herding cats: introducing Rust effectively is one part coding work and ninety-nine parts political work – and it’s a lot of coding work.”


  • It’s a whole different ballgame. I’ve written a good amount of C and C++ in my day. I’ve been learning Rust for a year or so now. Switching between allocating your own memory and managing it, and the concept of “Ownership” https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.html is just something many devs set in their ways aren’t willing to do.

    I understand where they’re coming from, I’ve gone through massive refactors with new tech in my career. I think this approach needs to be more methodical and cautious than it is, but I don’t think they are correct in the end result. I think a memory-safe language is the way to go, and it needs to happen.

    This to me is a classic software project with no manager and a bunch of devs arguing internally with no clear external goals. There needs to be definitive goals set over a timeline. If someone doesn’t agree after a consensus is reached they can leave the project. But as of now I think as others have said this is 80% infighting, 20% actual work that’s happening.



  • But on the other hand you can’t expect some smaller and smaller subset of the population to primarily just learn C and meet the criteria of a kernel dev.

    I absolutely agree with all your points, and most rust devs would agree, but the general idea is that over time that energy (which would have been spent tweaking malloc and such) should be spent on the rust compiler and memory management systems, which is already magic as someone who as written a lot of c, c++, and spent the better part of a year learning rust. (I’m no expert of course, but I have a pretty decent grasp on the low level memory management of both the Linux kernel and the rust compiler).

    So that over time the effort that would be spent on memory management and kernel functionality can be properly divided. Rust not being efficient somewhere in catching memory faults or managing memory? Fix it. Someone writing unsafe rust code? Fix it.

    I think at the end of the day everyone wants the same thing which is a memory safe kernel, and I think that rust Is being shoehorned into kernel projects too early in places where it shouldn’t be, but I also think there is unnatural resistance to it just because it’s different elsewhere to “how it’s always been done.”











  • In many ways you’re correct, the “modern” js toolkit can be a nightmare. I work for a SaaS company that makes emergency management software. I’m pretty proud of our setup. It’s Vue 3, it’s incredibly optimized. We have tree shaking and code splitting, e.g. there’s hundreds of potential JS files you might load using our software, but they will only load when you need them, over a brotli compressed HTTP/2 connection so it really is efficient.

    With the amount of data we process through our API and how it’s presented to the client it would be a nightmare to not have Vue for state management and routing, axios for API calls, etc. But many SaaS products certainly aren’t optimized like ours


  • kautau@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldMany such cases
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    29 days ago

    Many of the things that jQuery made easy back in the day are now pretty easy with pure js (Ajax calls, improved selectors, programmatic DOM manipulation, etc), and browser support for most JS features is way more standardized.

    Granted, your pure JS is likely to be way more verbose to write, making it look more intimidating than jQuery.

    That being said. jQuery is performant in modern browsers, and when being delivered compressed and minified is tiny, so if you want to use it, go for it. Anybody who criticizes you or tells you “you should use [x]” for your online store or website is a JS elitist.

    jQuery is really only a “bad” choice for big interactive web apps, where frameworks that handle state and routing independently of the DOM are a much better choice.