Re: My experiences with Rust

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:52:48 -0400
"Isaac (.ike) Levy" <ike@blackskyresearch.net> wrote:

> 
> > On Aug 22, 2025, at 5:29 PM, Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> ..
> > And nobody needs to open "format" *directly* in text editor - as CBOR is
> > seamlessly converted to/from text-form EDN (extended diagnostic notation, a
> > superset of JSON), that sounds like a requirement to open ELF binary directly
> > in text editor instead of just putting (dis)assembler into pipeline.
> 
> This goes against the principles that have made UNIX systems successful since 1969, (and follows path with many systems which came and went).
> 
> "Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface."
> Thompson, McEllroy, Salus, etc.
> 
> Love it or hate it, but it's a guarantee some user will be trying to debug/manage the interface output here many years after any of us in this thread have stopped touching it, when CBOR feels as antiquated as XML.  Big difference: anyone can read the XML and figure out what the heck it is by looking at it using common tools.
> 
> Best,
> .ike

And with this aspect, the philosophy of Rust is clearly against it.
AFAIK, Rust wants everything in monolithic binary to check, calcurate
and fixup as much as possible on compile time.

IIUC, this philosophy works best for "single executable containing all
executable codes including kernel, base userland and all apps except
loader, firmwares, text-based scripts and non-executable data.

And Unix philosophy is (IIUC) combine small and quick modules,
communicating through byte streams.

So Rust on Unixism (includes FreeBSD) need to fit into the philosophy.
At least, cdylib should always be default unless the apps (should be
none in kernel until everything is rewritten in Rust) are written in
Rust only.


Regards.

-- 
Tomoaki AOKI    <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>