NLnet Labs introduces Roto, a compiled scripting language designed specifically for extending Rust applications. Aiming to bridge the gap between embedded scripting (with languages like Lua) and native Rust extensions, Roto offers performance closer to native code while maintaining the flexibility and rapid iteration of a scripting language. It compiles to native code via LLVM, leverages Rust's type system and memory safety, and allows seamless interoperability with existing Rust code. Roto is still under active development but shows promise as a performant and safe way to script and extend Rust programs.
Red is a next-generation full-stack programming language aiming for both extreme simplicity and extreme power. It incorporates a reactive engine at its core, enabling responsive interfaces and dataflow programming. Featuring a human-friendly syntax, Red is designed for metaprogramming, code generation, and domain-specific language creation. It's cross-platform and offers a complete toolchain encompassing everything from low-level system programming to high-level scripting, with a small, optimized footprint suitable for embedded systems. Red's ambition is to bridge the gap between low-level languages like C and high-level languages like Rebol, from which it draws inspiration.
Hacker News commenters on the Red programming language announcement express cautious optimism mixed with skepticism. Several highlight Red's ambition to be both a system programming language and a high-level scripting language, questioning the feasibility of achieving both goals effectively. Performance concerns are raised, particularly regarding the current implementation and its reliance on Rebol. Some commenters find the "full-stack" nature intriguing, encompassing everything from low-level system access to GUI development, while others see it as overly broad and reminiscent of Rebol's shortcomings. The small team size and potential for vaporware are also noted. Despite reservations, there's interest in the project's potential, especially its cross-compilation capabilities and reactive programming features.
Brush is a new shell written in Rust, aiming for full POSIX compatibility and improved Bash compatibility. It leverages Rust's performance and safety features to create a potentially faster and more robust alternative to existing shells. While still in early development, Brush already supports many common shell features, including pipelines, globbing, and redirections. The project aims to eventually provide a drop-in replacement for Bash, offering a modern shell experience with improved performance and security.
HN commenters generally express excitement about Brush, praising its Rust implementation for potential performance and safety improvements over Bash. Several discuss the challenges of full Bash compatibility, particularly regarding corner cases and the complexities of parsing. Some suggest focusing on a smaller, cleaner subset of Bash functionality rather than striving for complete parity. Others raise concerns about potential performance overhead from Rust, especially regarding system calls, and question whether the benefits outweigh the costs. A few users mention looking forward to trying Brush, while others highlight similar projects like Ion and Nushell as alternative Rust-based shells. The maintainability of a complex project like a shell written in Rust is also discussed, with some expressing concerns about the long-term feasibility.
The blog post recounts the author's experience using Lilith, a workstation specifically designed for the Modula-2 programming language in the 1980s. Fascinated by Niklaus Wirth's work, the author acquired a Lilith and found it to be a powerful and elegant machine, deeply integrated with Modula-2. The post highlights the impressive speed of the system, the innovative windowing system, and the seamless integration of the Modula-2 development environment. Despite its advantages, the Lilith's specialized nature and limited software library ultimately led to its decline, making it a fascinating footnote in computing history.
HN commenters discuss Modula-2's strengths, primarily its clarity and strong typing, which fostered maintainable code. Some fondly recall using it for various projects, including operating systems and embedded systems, praising its performance and modularity. Others compare it to Oberon and discuss Wirth's design philosophy. Several lament its lack of widespread adoption, attributing it to factors like Wirth's resistance to extensions and the rise of C++. The lack of garbage collection and the complexity of its module system are also mentioned as potential downsides. Several commenters mention Wirth's preference for simpler systems and his perceived disdain for object-oriented programming. Finally, there's some discussion of alternative historical paths and the influence Modula-2 had on later languages.
Niklaus Wirth developed Oberon Pi, a single-board computer and operating system combination, as a modern embodiment of his minimalist computing philosophy. The system, built around a Broadcom BCM2835 SoC (the same as the original Raspberry Pi), features a compact, self-hosting Oberon compiler and operating system written entirely in Oberon. Wirth prioritized simplicity and efficiency, creating a system capable of booting and compiling its own OS and core tools in mere seconds, showcasing the power of a streamlined, tightly integrated software and hardware design. This project exemplifies Wirth's ongoing pursuit of elegant and efficient computing solutions.
HN commenters generally praise Wirth's work on Oberon, admiring its simplicity, elegance, and efficiency. Several discuss their experiences using Oberon or similar systems, highlighting its performance and small footprint. Some express a desire for a modern, actively maintained version of the OS and language, while others reminisce about the system's impact on their own programming practices. A few comments touch on the RISC-V architecture and its suitability for running Oberon. The tight integration of hardware and software in the Oberon project is also a recurring point of interest. Some express skepticism about its practicality in the modern computing landscape, while others see its minimalist approach as a valuable counterpoint to current trends.
TacOS is a hobby operating system kernel written from scratch in C and Assembly, designed with the specific goal of running DOOM. It features a custom bootloader, memory management, keyboard driver, and a VGA driver supporting a 320x200 resolution. The kernel interfaces with a custom DOOM port, allowing the game to run directly on the bare metal without relying on any underlying operating system like DOS. This project demonstrates a minimal but functional OS capable of running a complex application, showcasing the core components required for basic system functionality.
HN commenters generally express interest in the TacOS project, praising the author's initiative and the educational value of writing a kernel from scratch. Some commend the clean code and documentation, while others offer suggestions for improvement, such as exploring different memory management strategies or implementing a proper filesystem. A few users express skepticism about the "from scratch" claim, pointing out the use of existing libraries like GRUB and the inherent reliance on hardware specifications. Overall, the comments are positive and encouraging, acknowledging the difficulty of the project and the author's accomplishment. Some users engage in deeper technical discussion about specific implementation details and offer alternative approaches.
Sapphire is a Rust-based package manager designed specifically for macOS. It aims to be faster and more reliable than existing solutions like Homebrew by leveraging Rust's performance and memory safety. Sapphire utilizes a declarative package specification format and features parallel downloads and builds for increased speed. It also emphasizes reproducible builds through stricter dependency management and sandboxing. While still in early development, Sapphire offers a promising alternative for managing packages on macOS with a focus on speed, safety, and reliability.
Hacker News users discussed Sapphire's potential, praising its speed and Rust implementation. Some expressed skepticism about the need for another package manager, citing Homebrew's established position. Others questioned Sapphire's approach to dependency resolution and its claimed performance advantages. A few commenters were interested in cross-platform compatibility and the possibility of using Sapphire with other languages. Security concerns regarding pre-built binaries were also raised, alongside discussions about package signing and verification. The overall sentiment leaned towards cautious optimism, with many users interested in seeing how Sapphire develops.
Verus is a Rust verification framework designed for low-level systems programming. It extends Rust with features like specifications (preconditions, postconditions, and invariants) and data-race freedom proofs, allowing developers to formally verify the correctness and safety of their code. Verus integrates with existing Rust tools and aims to be practical for real-world systems development, leveraging SMT solvers to automate the verification process. It specifically targets areas like cryptography, operating systems kernels, and concurrent data structures, where rigorous correctness is paramount.
Hacker News users discussed Verus's potential and limitations. Some expressed excitement about its ability to verify low-level code, seeing it as a valuable tool for critical systems. Others questioned its practicality, citing the complexity of verification and the potential for performance overhead. The discussion also touched on the trade-offs between verification and traditional testing, with some arguing that testing remains essential even with formal verification. Several comments highlighted the challenge of balancing the strictness of verification with the flexibility needed for practical systems programming. Finally, some users were curious about Verus's performance characteristics and its suitability for real-world projects.
Zig's comptime is powerful but has limitations. It's not a general-purpose Turing-complete language. It cannot perform arbitrary I/O operations like reading files or making network requests. Loop bounds and recursion depth must be known at compile time, preventing dynamic computations based on runtime data. While it can generate code, it can't introspect or modify existing code, meaning no macros in the traditional C/C++ sense. Finally, comptime doesn't fully eliminate runtime overhead; some checks and operations might still occur at runtime, especially when interacting with non-comptime code. Essentially, comptime excels at manipulating data and generating code based on compile-time constants, but it's not a substitute for a fully-fledged scripting language embedded within the compiler.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's points about the limitations of Zig's comptime, acknowledging that it's not a general-purpose Turing-complete language. Several discuss the tradeoffs involved in compile-time execution, citing debugging difficulty and compile times as potential downsides. Some suggest that aiming for Turing completeness at compile time is not necessarily desirable and praise Zig's pragmatic approach. One commenter points out that comptime is still very powerful, highlighting its ability to generate optimized code based on input parameters, which allows for things like custom allocators and specialized data structures. Others discuss alternative approaches, such as using build scripts, and how Zig's features complement those methods. A few commenters express interest in seeing how Zig evolves and whether future versions might address some of the current limitations.
This blog post reflects on four years of using Jai, a programming language designed for game development. The author, satisfied with their choice, highlights Jai's strengths: speed, ease of use for complex tasks, and a powerful compile-time execution feature called comptime. They acknowledge some drawbacks, such as the language's relative immaturity, limited documentation, and single-person development team. Despite these challenges, the author emphasizes the productivity gains and enjoyment experienced while using Jai, concluding it's the right tool for their specific needs and expressing excitement for its future.
Commenters on Hacker News largely praised Jai's progress and Jonathan Blow's commitment to the project. Several expressed excitement about the language's potential, particularly its speed and focus on data-oriented design. Some questioned the long-term viability given the lack of a 1.0 release and the small community, while others pointed out that Blow's independent funding allows him to develop at his own pace. The discussion also touched on Jai's compile times (which are reportedly quite fast), its custom tooling, and comparisons to other languages like C++ and Zig. A few users shared their own experiences experimenting with Jai, highlighting both its strengths and areas needing improvement, such as documentation. There was also some debate around the language's syntax and overall readability.
"Hacktical C" is a free, online guide to the C programming language aimed at aspiring security researchers and exploit developers. It covers fundamental C concepts like data types, control flow, and memory management, but with a specific focus on how these concepts are relevant to low-level programming and exploitation techniques. The guide emphasizes practical application, featuring numerous code examples and exercises demonstrating buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities, and other common security flaws. It also delves into topics like interacting with the operating system, working with assembly language, and reverse engineering, all within the context of utilizing C for offensive security purposes.
Hacker News users largely praised "Hacktical C" for its clear writing style and focus on practical application, particularly for those interested in systems programming and security. Several commenters appreciated the author's approach of explaining concepts through real-world examples, like crafting shellcode and exploiting vulnerabilities. Some highlighted the book's coverage of lesser-known C features and quirks, making it valuable even for experienced programmers. A few pointed out potential improvements, such as adding more exercises or expanding on certain topics. Overall, the sentiment was positive, with many recommending the book for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of C and its use in low-level programming.
Rust enums can surprisingly be smaller than expected. While naively, one might assume an enum's size is determined by the largest variant plus a discriminant to track which variant is active, the compiler optimizes this. If an enum's largest variant contains data with internal padding, the discriminant can sometimes be stored within that padding, avoiding an increase in the overall size. This optimization applies even when using #[repr(C)] or #[repr(u8)], so long as the layout allows it. Essentially, the compiler cleverly utilizes existing unused space within variants to store the variant tag, minimizing the enum's memory footprint.
Hacker News users discussed the surprising optimization where Rust can reduce the size of an enum if its variants all have the same representation. Some commenters expressed admiration for this detail of the Rust compiler and its potential performance benefits. A few questioned the long-term stability of relying on this optimization, wondering if changes to the enum's variants could inadvertently increase its size in the future. Others delved into the specifics of how this optimization interacts with features like repr(C) and niche filling optimizations. One user linked to a relevant section of the Rust Reference, further illuminating the compiler's behavior. The discussion also touched upon the potential downsides, such as making the generated assembly more complex, and how using #[repr(u8)] might offer a more predictable and explicit way to control enum size.
C3 is a new programming language designed as a modern alternative to C. It aims to be safer and easier to use while maintaining C's performance and low-level control. Key features include optional memory safety through compile-time checks and garbage collection, improved syntax and error messages, and built-in modularity. The project is actively under development and includes a self-hosting compiler written in C3. The goal is to provide a practical language for systems programming and other performance-sensitive domains while mitigating common C pitfalls.
HN users discuss C3's goals and features, expressing both interest and skepticism. Several question the need for another C-like language, especially given the continued development of C and C++. Some appreciate the focus on safety and preventing common C errors, while others find the changes too drastic a departure from C's philosophy. There's debate about the practicality of automatic memory management in systems programming, and some concern over the runtime overhead it might introduce. The project's early stage is noted, and some express reservations about its long-term viability and community adoption. Others are more optimistic, praising the clear documentation and expressing interest in following its progress. The use of Python for the compiler is also a point of discussion.
This post details a method for using rr, a record and replay debugger, with Docker and Podman to debug applications in containerized environments, even on distros where rr isn't officially supported. The core of the approach involves creating a privileged debugging container with the necessary rr dependencies, mounting the target container's filesystem, and then using rr within the debugging container to record and replay the execution of the application inside the mounted container. This allows developers to leverage rr's powerful debugging capabilities, including reverse debugging, in a consistent and reproducible way regardless of the underlying container runtime or host distribution. The post provides detailed instructions and scripts to simplify the process, making it easier to adopt rr for containerized development workflows.
HN users generally praised the approach of using rr for debugging, highlighting its usefulness for complex, hard-to-reproduce bugs. Several commenters shared their positive experiences and successful debugging stories using rr. Some discussion revolved around the limitations of rr, specifically its performance overhead and compatibility issues with certain programs. The difficulty of debugging optimized code was mentioned, as was the need for improved tooling in general. A few users expressed interest in exploring similar tools and approaches for other operating systems besides Linux. One user suggested that the "replay everywhere" aspect is the most crucial part, emphasizing its importance for collaborative debugging and sharing reproducible bug reports.
Jakt is a statically-typed, compiled programming language designed for performance and ease of use, with a focus on systems programming, game development, and GUI applications. Inspired by C++, Rust, and other modern languages, it features manual memory management, optional garbage collection, compile-time evaluation, and a friendly syntax. Developed alongside the SerenityOS operating system, Jakt aims to offer a robust and modern alternative for building performant and maintainable software while prioritizing developer productivity.
Hacker News users discuss Jakt's resemblance to C++, Rust, and Swift, noting its potential appeal to those familiar with these languages. Several commenters express interest in its development, praising its apparent simplicity and clean design, particularly the ownership model and memory management. Some skepticism arises about the long-term viability of another niche language, and concerns are voiced about potential performance limitations due to garbage collection. The cross-compilation ability for WebAssembly also generated interest, with users envisioning potential applications. A few commenters mention the project's active and welcoming community as a positive aspect. Overall, the comments indicate a cautious optimism towards Jakt, with many intrigued by its features but also mindful of the challenges facing a new programming language.
The author recounts their teenage experience developing a rudimentary operating system for the Inmos Transputer. Fascinated by parallel processing, they created a system capable of multitasking and inter-process communication using the Transputer's unique link architecture. The OS, written in Occam, featured a kernel, device drivers, and a command-line interface, demonstrating a surprisingly sophisticated understanding of OS principles for a young programmer. Despite its limitations, like a lack of memory protection and a simple scheduler, the project provided valuable learning experiences in systems programming and showcased the potential of the Transputer's parallel processing capabilities.
Hacker News users discussed the blog post about a teen's experience developing a Transputer OS, largely focusing on the impressive nature of the project for someone so young. Several commenters reminisced about their own early programming experiences, often involving simpler systems like the Z80 or 6502. Some discussed the specific challenges of the Transputer architecture, like the difficulty of debugging and the limitations of the Occam language. A few users questioned the true complexity of the OS, suggesting it might be more accurately described as a kernel. Others shared links to resources for learning more about Transputers and Occam. The overall sentiment was one of admiration for the author's initiative and technical skills at a young age.
"The Night Watch" argues that modern operating systems are overly complex and difficult to secure due to the accretion of features and legacy code. It proposes a "clean-slate" approach, advocating for simpler, more formally verifiable microkernels. This would entail moving much of the OS functionality into user space, enabling better isolation and fault containment. While acknowledging the challenges of such a radical shift, including performance concerns and the enormous effort required to rebuild the software ecosystem, the paper contends that the long-term benefits of improved security and reliability outweigh the costs. It emphasizes that the current trajectory of increasingly complex OSes is unsustainable and that a fundamental rethinking of system design is crucial to address the growing security threats facing modern computing.
HN users discuss James Mickens' humorous USENIX keynote, "The Night Watch," focusing on its entertaining delivery and insightful points about the complexities and frustrations of systems work. Several commenters praise Mickens' unique presentation style and the relatable nature of his anecdotes about debugging, legacy code, and the challenges of managing distributed systems. Some highlight specific memorable quotes and jokes, appreciating the blend of humor and technical depth. Others reflect on the timeless nature of the talk, noting how the issues discussed remain relevant years later. A few commenters express interest in seeing a video recording of the presentation.
Driven by a desire for simplicity and performance in a personal project involving embedded systems and game development, the author rediscovered their passion for C. After years of working with higher-level languages, they found the direct control and predictable behavior of C refreshing and efficient. This shift allowed them to focus on core programming principles and optimize their code for resource-constrained environments, ultimately leading to a more satisfying and performant outcome than they felt was achievable with more complex tools. They argue that while modern languages offer conveniences, C's close-to-the-metal nature provides a unique learning experience and performance advantage, particularly for certain applications.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's points about C's advantages, particularly its predictability and control over performance. Several praised the feeling of being "close to the metal" and the satisfaction of understanding exactly how the code interacts with the hardware. Some offered additional benefits of C, such as easier debugging due to its simpler execution model and its usefulness in constrained environments. A few commenters cautioned against romanticizing C, pointing out its drawbacks like manual memory management and the potential for security vulnerabilities. One commenter suggested Zig as a modern alternative that addresses some of C's shortcomings while maintaining its performance benefits. The discussion also touched on the enduring relevance of C, particularly in foundational systems and performance-critical applications.
The blog post "An epic treatise on error models for systems programming languages" explores the landscape of error handling strategies, arguing that current approaches in languages like C, C++, Go, and Rust are insufficient for robust systems programming. It criticizes unchecked exceptions for their potential to cause undefined behavior and resource leaks, while also finding fault with error codes and checked exceptions for their verbosity and tendency to hinder code flow. The author advocates for a more comprehensive error model based on "algebraic effects," which allows developers to precisely define and handle various error scenarios while maintaining control over resource management and program termination. This approach aims to combine the benefits of different error handling mechanisms while mitigating their respective drawbacks, ultimately promoting greater reliability and predictability in systems software.
HN commenters largely praised the article for its thoroughness and clarity in explaining error handling strategies. Several appreciated the author's balanced approach, presenting the tradeoffs of each model without overtly favoring one. Some highlighted the insightful discussion of checked exceptions and their limitations, particularly in relation to algebraic error types and error-returning functions. A few commenters offered additional perspectives, including the importance of distinguishing between recoverable and unrecoverable errors, and the potential benefits of static analysis tools in managing error handling. The overall sentiment was positive, with many thanking the author for providing a valuable resource for systems programmers.
The Hacker News post asks users about their experiences with lesser-known systems programming languages. The author is seeking alternatives to C/C++ and Rust, specifically languages offering good performance, memory management control, and a pleasant development experience. They express interest in exploring options like Zig, Odin, Jai, and Nim, and are curious about other languages the community might be using for low-level tasks, driver development, embedded systems, or performance-critical applications.
The Hacker News comments discuss various less-popular systems programming languages and their use cases. Several commenters advocate for Zig, praising its simplicity, control over memory management, and growing ecosystem. Others mention Nim, highlighting its metaprogramming capabilities and Python-like syntax. Rust also receives some attention, albeit with acknowledgements of its steeper learning curve. More niche languages like Odin, Jai, and Hare are brought up, often in the context of game development or performance-critical applications. Some commenters express skepticism about newer languages gaining widespread adoption due to the network effects of established options like C and C++. The discussion also touches on the importance of considering the specific project requirements and team expertise when choosing a language.
The YouTube video "Microsoft is Getting Rusty" argues that Microsoft is increasingly adopting the Rust programming language due to its memory safety and performance benefits, particularly in areas where C++ has historically been problematic. The video highlights Microsoft's growing use of Rust in various projects like Azure and Windows, citing examples like rewriting core Windows components. It emphasizes that while C++ remains important, Rust is seen as a crucial tool for improving the security and reliability of Microsoft's software, and suggests this trend will likely continue as Rust matures and gains wider adoption within the company.
Hacker News users discussed Microsoft's increasing use of Rust, generally expressing optimism about its memory safety benefits and suitability for performance-sensitive systems programming. Some commenters noted Rust's steep learning curve, but acknowledged its potential to mitigate vulnerabilities prevalent in C/C++ codebases. Several users shared personal experiences with Rust, highlighting its positive impact on their projects. The discussion also touched upon the challenges of integrating Rust into existing projects and the importance of tooling and community support. A few comments expressed skepticism, questioning the long-term viability of Rust and its ability to fully replace C/C++. Overall, the comments reflect a cautious but positive outlook on Microsoft's adoption of Rust.
Greg Kroah-Hartman's post argues that new drivers and kernel modules being written in Rust benefit the entire Linux kernel community. He emphasizes that Rust's memory safety features improve overall kernel stability and security, reducing potential bugs and vulnerabilities for everyone, even those not directly involved with Rust code. This advantage outweighs any perceived downsides like increased code complexity or a steeper learning curve for some developers. The improved safety and resulting stability ultimately reduces maintenance burden and allows developers to focus on new features instead of bug fixes, benefiting the entire ecosystem.
HN commenters largely agree with Greg KH's assessment of Rust's benefits for the kernel. Several highlight the improved memory safety and the potential for catching bugs early in the development process as significant advantages. Some express excitement about the prospect of new drivers and filesystems written in Rust, while others acknowledge the learning curve for kernel developers. A few commenters raise concerns, including the increased complexity of debugging Rust code in the kernel and the potential performance overhead. One commenter questions the long-term maintenance implications of introducing a new language, wondering if it might exacerbate the already challenging task of maintaining the kernel. Another suggests that the real win will be determined by whether Rust truly reduces the number of CVEs related to memory safety issues in the long run.
After a year of using the uv HTTP server for production, the author found it performant and easy to integrate with existing C code, praising its small binary size, minimal dependencies, and speed. However, the project is relatively immature, leading to occasional bugs and missing features compared to more established servers like Nginx or Caddy. While documentation has improved, it still lacks depth. The author concludes that uv is a solid choice for projects prioritizing performance and tight C integration, especially when resources are constrained. However, those needing a feature-rich and stable solution might be better served by a more mature alternative. Ultimately, the decision to migrate depends on individual project needs and risk tolerance.
Hacker News users generally reacted positively to the author's experience with the uv terminal multiplexer. Several commenters echoed the author's praise for uv's speed and responsiveness, particularly compared to alternatives like tmux. Some highlighted specific features they appreciated, such as the intuitive copy-paste functionality and the project's active development. A few users mentioned minor issues or missing features, like lack of support for nested sessions or certain keybindings, but these were generally framed as minor inconveniences rather than major drawbacks. Overall, the sentiment leaned towards recommending uv as a strong contender in the terminal multiplexer space, especially for those prioritizing performance.
RustOwl is a tool that visually represents Rust's ownership and borrowing system. It analyzes Rust code and generates diagrams illustrating the lifetimes of variables, how ownership is transferred, and where borrows occur. This allows developers to more easily understand complex ownership scenarios and debug potential issues like dangling pointers or data races, providing a clear, graphical representation of the code's memory management. The tool helps to demystify Rust's core concepts by visually mapping how values are owned and borrowed throughout their lifetime, clarifying the relationship between different parts of the code and enhancing overall code comprehension.
HN users generally expressed interest in RustOwl, particularly its potential as a learning tool for Rust's complex ownership and borrowing system. Some suggested improvements, like adding support for visualizing more advanced concepts like Rc/Arc, mutexes, and asynchronous code. Others discussed its potential use in debugging, especially for larger projects where ownership issues become harder to track mentally. A few users compared it to existing tools like Rustviz and pointed out potential limitations in fully representing all of Rust's nuances visually. The overall sentiment appears positive, with many seeing it as a valuable contribution to the Rust ecosystem.
This blog post details creating a basic Windows driver using Rust. It leverages the windows crate for Windows API bindings and the wdk-sys crate for lower-level WDK access. The driver implements a minimal "DispatchCreateClose" routine, handling device creation and closure. The post walks through setting up the Rust development environment, including Cargo configuration and build process adjustments for driver compilation. It highlights using the wdk-build crate for simplifying the build process and generating the necessary INF file for driver installation. Finally, it demonstrates loading and unloading the driver using the DevCon utility, providing a practical example of the entire workflow from development to deployment.
Hacker News users discussed the challenges and advantages of writing Windows drivers in Rust. Several commenters pointed out the difficulty of working with the Windows Driver Kit (WDK) and its C/C++ focus, contrasting it with Rust's memory safety and modern tooling. Some highlighted the potential for improved driver stability and security with Rust. The conversation also touched on existing Rust wrappers for the WDK, the maturity of Rust driver development, and the complexities of interrupt handling. One user questioned the overall benefit, arguing that the difficulty of writing drivers stems from inherent hardware complexities more than language choice. Another pointed out the limited use of high-level languages in kernel-mode drivers due to real-time constraints.
The blog post argues for a more holistic approach to debugging and performance analysis by combining various tools and data sources. It emphasizes the limitations of isolated tools like memory profilers, call graphs, exception reports, and telemetry, advocating instead for integrating them to provide "system-wide context." This richer context allows developers to understand not only what went wrong, but also why and how, enabling more effective and efficient troubleshooting. The post uses a fictional scenario involving a slow web service to illustrate how correlating data from different tools can pinpoint the root cause of a performance issue, which in their example turns out to be an unexpected interaction between a third-party library and the application's caching strategy.
Hacker News users discussed the blog post about system-wide context, focusing primarily on the practical challenges of implementing such a system. Several commenters pointed out the difficulty of handling circular dependencies and the potential performance overhead, particularly in garbage-collected languages. Some suggested alternative approaches like structured logging and distributed tracing, while others questioned the overall value proposition compared to existing debugging tools. The complexity of integrating with different programming languages and the potential for information overload were also raised as concerns. A few commenters expressed interest in the idea but acknowledged the significant engineering effort required to make it a reality. One compelling comment highlighted the potential benefits for debugging complex, distributed systems, where understanding the interplay of different components is crucial.
This blog post advocates for a "no-panic" approach to Rust systems programming, aiming to eliminate all panics in production code. The author argues that while panic! is useful during development, it's unsuitable for production systems where predictable failure handling is crucial. They propose using the ? operator extensively for error propagation and leveraging types like Result and Option to explicitly handle potential failures. This forces developers to consider and address all possible error scenarios, leading to more robust and reliable systems. The post also touches upon strategies for handling truly unrecoverable errors, suggesting techniques like logging the error and then halting the system gracefully, rather than relying on the unpredictable behavior of a panic.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that the no_panic crate offers a useful approach for systems programming in Rust. Several highlight the benefit of forcing explicit error handling at compile time, preventing unexpected panics in production. Some discuss the trade-offs of increased verbosity and potential performance overhead compared to using Option or Result. One commenter points out a potential issue with using no_panic in interrupt handlers where unwinding is genuinely unsafe, suggesting careful consideration is needed when applying this technique. Another appreciates the blog post's clarity and the practical example provided. There's also a brief discussion on how the underlying mechanisms of no_panic work, including its use of static mutable variables and compiler intrinsics.
The author details their process of creating a WebAssembly (Wasm) virtual machine (VM) written entirely in C. Driven by a desire for a lightweight, embeddable Wasm runtime for resource-constrained environments, they built the VM from scratch, implementing core features like the stack-based execution model, linear memory, and basic WebAssembly System Interface (WASI) support. The project focused on simplicity and understandability over performance, serving primarily as a learning exercise and a platform for experimentation with Wasm. The post walks through key aspects of the VM's design and implementation, including parsing the Wasm binary format, handling function calls, and managing memory. It also highlights the challenges faced and lessons learned during the development process.
Hacker News users generally praised the author's clear writing style and the educational value of the post. Several commenters discussed the project's performance, noting that it's not optimized for speed and suggesting potential improvements like just-in-time compilation. Some shared their own experiences with WASM interpreters and related projects, including comparisons to other implementations and alternative approaches like using a stack machine. Others appreciated the detailed explanation of the parsing and execution process, finding it helpful for understanding WASM internals. A few users pointed out minor corrections or areas for potential enhancement in the code, demonstrating active engagement with the technical details.
Uscope is a new, from-scratch debugger for Linux written in C and Python. It aims to be a modern, user-friendly alternative to GDB, boasting a simpler, more intuitive command language and interface. Key features include reverse debugging capabilities, a TUI interface with mouse support, and integration with Python scripting for extended functionality. The project is currently under active development and welcomes contributions.
Hacker News users generally expressed interest in Uscope, praising its clean UI and the ambition of building a debugger from scratch. Several commenters questioned the practical need for a new debugger given existing robust options like GDB, LLDB, and Delve, wondering about Uscope's potential advantages. Some discussed the challenges of debugger development, highlighting the complexities of DWARF parsing and platform compatibility. A few users suggested integrations with other tools, like REPLs, and requested features like remote debugging. The novelty of a fresh approach to debugging generated curiosity, but skepticism regarding long-term viability and differentiation also emerged. Some expressed concerns about feature parity with existing debuggers and the sustainability of the project.
In Zig, a Writer is essentially a way to abstract writing data to various destinations. It's not a specific type, but rather an interface defined by a set of functions (like writeAll, writeByte, etc.) that any type can implement. This allows for flexible output handling, as code can be written to work with any Writer regardless of whether it targets a file, standard output, network socket, or an in-memory buffer. By passing a Writer instance to a function, you decouple data production from the specific output destination, promoting reusability and testability. This approach simplifies code by unifying the way data is written across different contexts.
Hacker News users discuss the benefits and drawbacks of Zig's Writer abstraction. Several commenters appreciate the explicit error handling and composability it offers, contrasting it favorably to C's FILE pointer and noting the difficulties of properly handling errors with the latter. Some questioned the ergonomics and verbosity, suggesting that try might be preferable to explicit if checks for every write operation. Others highlight the power of Writer for building complex, layered I/O operations and appreciate its generality, enabling writing to diverse destinations like files, network sockets, and in-memory buffers. The lack of implicit flushing is mentioned, with commenters acknowledging the tradeoffs between explicit control and potential performance impacts. Overall, the discussion revolves around the balance between explicitness, control, and ease of use provided by Zig's Writer.
Summary of Comments ( 82 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44050222
HN commenters discuss Roto's potential, particularly for embedded systems and scenarios requiring quick iteration. Some express interest in its ability to potentially replace Lua while offering better performance and tighter Rust integration. Concerns arise about Roto's early stage of development and limited documentation. Several commenters question its practical advantages over existing scripting solutions or using Rust directly, particularly given the existence of similar projects. Others raise points about garbage collection, debugging, and the trade-offs between scripting and compiled languages. Finally, some discuss the difficulty of achieving the "holy grail" of a truly performant, easy-to-use scripting language embedded within a systems language.
The Hacker News post for "Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a number of commenters exploring various aspects of the language and its potential use cases.
Several commenters expressed interest in Roto's ability to address the complexities of build scripts and configuration management in Rust. They saw it as a potential solution to the awkwardness of using existing tools like
build.rsscripts, which often require dropping down to a lower level of abstraction and dealing with environment variables and process management. Roto's compiled nature and Rust integration were seen as advantageous in this context.There was a discussion around the tradeoffs between interpreted and compiled scripting languages. Some questioned whether a compiled scripting language truly offered significant advantages over an interpreted one, especially given the overhead of compilation. However, proponents of Roto countered that the performance benefits and tighter integration with Rust's type system outweighed the compilation costs, particularly in scenarios where the script is executed repeatedly.
A few commenters drew parallels between Roto and other scripting or extension languages like Lua and Dyon. They discussed the potential for Roto to fill a similar niche within the Rust ecosystem, enabling developers to extend Rust applications with dynamic scripting capabilities.
Some users also raised questions about Roto's specific features and implementation details, such as its garbage collection mechanism, error handling strategy, and the extent of its integration with existing Rust crates. These questions highlighted the desire for more information about the language's practical aspects and how it compares to alternative approaches.
A recurring theme was the desire for a more streamlined and ergonomic developer experience within the Rust ecosystem. Roto was viewed by some as a potential step in this direction, offering a more convenient way to handle tasks that are currently cumbersome or require workarounds.
Finally, there was some skepticism expressed about the long-term viability of Roto. Some commenters questioned whether it would gain sufficient traction and community support to become a widely adopted tool. However, others expressed optimism, noting the potential for Roto to address real pain points in the Rust development workflow.