However, for System 76 Rust is a very good choice.
But calling it "Rust based" when it's GTK is clearly a bit bold ...
However, for System 76 Rust is a very good choice.
But calling it "Rust based" when it's GTK is clearly a bit bold ...
What?! The year of the Linux desktop hasn't been eluding us because of buffer overflows and memory safety. The Rust hype train is incredible. The Linux desktop problems have nothing to do with the goal Rust sets out to solve.
It's definitely a good choice of language for the problem, don't get me wrong, but choosing that language doesn't improve the chances of COSMIC revolutionising the Linux desktop situation one iota.
I also know that Linux desktops are often victims of memory bugs, and that a higher-level language for extensions is something people appreciate, that's why there's JS in GNOME.
That said, this is not the sole benefit of Rust. It is more of a side effect of aliasing XOR mutability than the primary benefit of Rust as a whole. Let's take a look at the C and Vala landscape as a comparison. Neither support message passing with channels, and async support is virtually an unmaintainable hack. Vala has generics thankfully, but C doesn't have generics and it's really bad. It also doesn't help that your only options for building software is pretty much almost entirely GLib and whatever sparse set libraries might be available for the package manager. Whereas with Rust there's a vast immutable repository of libraries you can leverage, and publishing open source libraries on the platform is easy.