Objectives for the next year

[Hal Murray]

Achim Gratz said:
>  Since the last round of discussion both sides of the argument have been
> moving.  If you believe that Rust will become a first-class implementation
> language for the Linux kernel, that would tip the scales in favor of rust
> considerably in my view. 

Thanks.

I just watched a video that said Rust uses LLVM.

A while ago, I asked about which systems don't have a "PLL".  (no response yet)
Do we support any systems that don't have LLVM?

Do we have an official policy on which systems we support?


Rust doesn't have a garbage collector.  It does have reference counting.  I 
think I'd be happy with that.  Are there any cases where we need garbage 
collection?  Or where it would be very convenient?


esr at thyrsus.com said:
> 2. I don't think Rust is as yet stable enough for our purposes. The language
> and core libraries are still in some flux - we can't yet count on a feature
> we're relying on not disappearing over the next decade.  This is a very
> srtark contrast with Go's ironclad forward-compatibility guarantee. 

The video I watched said Rust has editions and they plan to support older 
editions forever.  That should cover language changes.  The example in the 
talk was adding the "async" keyword.

That covers the language, not the libraries.  Do we depend on any libraries 
that are likely to stop being supported?  The only signigicant package I can 
see that we depend upon is OpenSSL.  That seems unlikely to go away.



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.