On 05/03/2016 01:57 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 04:29:11PM -0700, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
>> Given this effort, and the fact that they've gotten pretty damn far
>> towards being usable, I'd say you can't *possibly* argue that "they
>> all *epic-ly* [sic] fail at the kernel step." (emphasis mine).
>
> Like Hurd.
Hurd development started in 1990, redox started in 2015. If they are
both at the same state of development (don't know, didn't test any of
them), should a direct deduction be that rust is better than C to write
OSes? (now I'm actually trolling, you dragged me down this path)
The fact remains: rust has had approx. 1/26 times the time hurd, and
1/25 times the time linux had to develop. Do you think it's fair to
already consider it's an epic fail?
> [...]
Received on Tue May 03 2016 - 10:16:31 CEST