[continued from previous message]   
      
   example, and error handling is generally more robust; there are   
   some instances where the C code will panic in response to user   
   action because it's awkward to return an error to the calling   
   process, but I can bubble thus back up through the kernel and   
   into user space using the `Result` type), but the structure is   
   largely the same; my only real conceit to structural change in   
   an effort to embrace modernity was the pseudo-slab allocator for   
   pipe objects.  Indeed, there are some things where I think the   
   rewrite is _less_ elegant than the original (the doubly-linked   
   list for the double-ended queue of free buffers in the block   
   caching layer, for instance: this was a beautiful little idea in   
   early Unix, but its expression in Rust -- simulated using   
   indices into the fixed-size buffer cache -- is awkward).   
      
   The Rust port did expose a few bugs in the original, which I   
   fixed and contributed back to MIT.  And while it's true that the   
   xv6 code was initially written in the mid 00's, it is still very   
   much used and maintained (though MIT has moved on to a variant   
   that targets RISC-V and sunsetted the x86 code).  Also, xv6 has   
   formed the basis for several research projects, and provided a   
   research platform that has resulted in more than one   
   dissertation.  To say that it is not representative of modern C   
   does not seem accurate; it was explicitly written as a modern   
   replacement for 6th Edition Unix, after all.  And if it is not   
   considered modern, then what is?   
      
   I hear this argument a lot, but it quickly turns into a "no true   
   Scotsman" fallacy.  This is less frivilous than many of the   
   other arguments that are thrown out to just dismiss Rust (or any   
   other technology, honestly) that often boil down to, honestly,   
   emotion.  But if the comparison doesn't feel like it's head to   
   head, then propose a _good_ C code base to compare to Rust.   
      
   >(As for the topic of this thread - Rust is getting steadily more popular   
   >regardless of what anyone may think about the language, so it's own   
   >newsgroup seems perfectly reasonable to me.)   
      
   Fair point.  I changed the "Subject:" header to reflect the   
   drift.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)