The timing of the recent batch of propaganda makes it hard to believe it's not coordinated. I wouldn't suggest paid actors but maybe just an attempt to counter some fairly visible and negative recent takes. The amount of "I love Rust but" comments make it hard to take the commentary seriously too.
I can see the appeal if there is a need for stronger metaprogramming. Not that Zig is terrible in this area, it is just that Jon's language is much more powerful in that area at this stage.
That being said, I do see an issue with globally scoped imports. It would be nice to know if imports can be locally scoped into a namespace or struct.
In all, whether it's compete or coexist (I don't believe the compiler for Jon's language can handle other languages so you might use Zig to compile any C or C++ or Zig), it will be nice to see another programming language garner some attention and hopefully quell the hype of others.
> That one bug happened one time does not mean that the promise is broken.
It's not been once. Don't you understand that is why things have gotten to this point? Are you aware of how the developers have been using Coccinelle in their workflows and how many subsystems support it? And are you aware that the Coccinelle for Rust implementation is constantly in a dire state? Have some empathy for the folks who have had their workflows broken and burdens increased because of it.
> Let's say that we both agree that Linus should be making clear statements here, and that lack of clarity is causing lots of problems.
Clarity will be communicated by the result of this patch set.
> Then I think we need a clear statement from Linus how he will be working. If he is build testing rust or not.
> Without that I don't think the Rust team should be saying "any changes on the C side rests entirely on the Rust side's shoulders".
> It is clearly not the process if Linus is build testing rust and rejecting PRs that fail to build.
The matter and the question at heart is still unsettled. The answer of whether or not Rust being in a broken state is a blocker for working and valid C code will hopefully be addressed by the end of this cycle of development. Either the patches are accepted and Rust is truly allowed to be broken or the patches will not be accepted due to breaking the Rust builds. If it is the latter, as many of the C developers fear, that is the exact burden being placed upon them that they have been stressing very loudly that they have no interest in taking on. And once other maintainers see this, what is the inevitable response to this metastasization? Comments like those from Ted and Christoph will pale in comparison. The only bright side might be that this finally accelerates the inevitable demise of this failed Rust experiment so that all parties can move on with their business.
> Yes, I do think endlessly relitigating project decisions that have been made is inappropriate.
Will you feel this way when the ruling eventually comes down that the Rust for Linux experiment has been declared a failure? Referring to what is currently an experiment as a decision is a rather bold misrepresentation of the current state. You want to present Rust in the kernel as a foregone conclusion when the reality couldn't be further from that.
> It is not a technical stance. It is a project management one.
Unstable infrastructure becoming a bottleneck is project management? Maybe a working implementation of Coccinelle for Rust should have been among the criteria before the experiment should have been allowed to proceed. That would have precluded the years of furor this has otherwise caused.
> That is exactly why the maintenance burden is not his problem. He is under no obligation to take any additional work here.
This highlights the crux of the issue and the reason your bias is clouding your view of the issue objectively. You are operating on the belief and trust of the small amount of Rust developers. Reality is proving otherwise time and time again.
In the face of Coccinelle for Rust still being unreliable, can you blame him or any maintainer? The codebase is too large to suggest that manual intervention every time something breaks is acceptable, especially when the same automated tool has been in place for C for nearly two decades. And worse yet, much of the code that is generated for Rust is in the form of macros which are quite possibly some of the most unmaintainable and difficult to parse parts of Rust.
You might not like the response for being strongly worded but it is indeed backed by a technical stance and not a political or social one as has been repeatedly suggested. Already overworked maintainers are not willing to sign up for additional maintenance to what has been a solved problem. Objectively, no one should disagree with that stance.