Oh no, it's written in C and not Rust. The blasphemy!

aloha2436 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm trying to picture in my mind a person who is a fan of Rust and somehow against an OS with a formally-verified kernel no matter the language. I'm not having much success.

▲

fooker 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I see you have not met a lot of Rust activists.

	▲	aloha2436 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Certainly I don't seem to run into as many of them as I'm led to believe exists.
	▲	pppppiiiiiuuuuu an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's funny how people always allude to fanatical Rust developers in the most tangential threads, but they never actually turn up and demand we rewrite the entire Kernel in Rust or whatever terrible takes they're alleged to have.

▲

kjs3 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At least someone hasn't complained about it being 'unix like', always without defining what the non-unix-like OS they want would look like, or where the software to run on it would come from.

▲

snvzz 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Rust, an immature language with fluidly evolving specification / reference implementation, is not suitable for high assurance nor formal verification.

	▲	steveklabnik an hour ago \| parent [-]
		… except that Rust’s compiler has been qualified for several safety critical standards, with more to come, and has several formal verification tools as well. Amazon even has placed bounties (and paid some) for proving things about the standard library. Rust is not as immature or evolving in the ways you imply.