<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: antioxide</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=antioxide</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 19:03:08 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=antioxide" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by antioxide in "Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>you can look at rust sources of real system programs like framekernel or such things. uefi-rs etc.<p>there u can likely explore well the boundaries where rust does and does not work.<p>people have all kind of opinions. mine is this:<p>if you need unsafe peppered around, the only thing rust offers is being very unergonomic. its hard to write and hard to debug for no reason. Writing memory-safe C code is easy. The problems rust solves arent bad, just solved in a way thats way more complicated than writing same (safe) C code.<p>a language is not unsafe. you can write perfectly shit code in rust. and you can write perfectly safe code in C.<p>people need to stop calling a language safe and then reimplementing other peoples hard work in a bad way creating whole new vulnerabilities.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 07:45:57 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46215186</link><dc:creator>antioxide</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46215186</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46215186</guid></item></channel></rss>