I was addressing this portion of your comment: "C's ABI and dynamic linking are the thing that enables the software to get huge". If the C ABI is what enables software to get huge then Rust is already there.
There is a second claim in your comment about a "safe ABI", but that is something that neither C or C++ offers right now.
> There is a second claim in your comment about a "safe ABI", but that is something that neither C or C++ offers right now.
Of course C and C++ are no safer in this regard. (Well, with Fil-C they are safer, but like whatever.)
But that misses the point, which is that:
- It would be a big deal if Rust did have a safe dynamic linking ABI. Someone should do it. That's the main point I'm making. I don't think deflecting by saying "but C is no safer" is super interesting.
- So long as this problem isn't fixed, the upside of using Rust to replace a lot of the load bearing stuff in an OS is much lower than it should be to justify the effort. This point is debatable for sure, but your arguments don't address it.
I think we all agree that it would be a huge deal.
> - So long as this problem isn't fixed, the upside of using Rust to replace a lot of the load bearing stuff in an OS is much lower than it should be to justify the effort. This point is debatable for sure, but your arguments don't address it.
As you point out, this is the debatable part, and I'm not sure I get your justification here.
> It can't be that replacing 20 C/C++ shared objects with 20 Rust shared objects results in 20 copies of the Rust standard library and other dependencies that those Rust libraries pull in. But, today, that is what happens. For some situations, this is too much of a memory usage regression to be tolerable.
If memory was cheap, then maybe you could say, "who cares".
Unfortunately memory isn't cheap these days
In C, a function definition usually corresponds 1-to-1 to a function in object code. In Rust, plenty of things in the stdlib are generic functions that effectively get a separate implementation for each type you use them with.
If there's a library that defines Foo but doesn't use VecFoo>, and there are 3 other libraries in your program that do use that type, where should the Vec functions specialized for Foo reside? How do languages like Swift (which is notoriously dynamically-linked) solve this?
This isn’t that kind of duplication.
"compression is insanely effective" - And what about energy? compression will increase CPU use. It will also make everything slower - slower than just plain deduplication. Also, your reason for using worse for user tech is: the user can mitigate in other ways? This strikes me as the same logic as "we don't need to optimize our program/game, users will just buy better hardware" or just plain throwing cost to user - this is not valid solution just downplaying of the argument.
One of the very first consumer hardware to support dynamic linking was the Amiga, with its Libraries and DataTypes.
We moved away from having a full blown OS done with static linking, with exception of embedded deployments and firmware, for many reasons.
E.g. the kernel wouldn't really benefit from a "safe ABI" because users calling into the kernel need to be considered malicious by default.
I think you're moving the goalposts significantly here.
Rust-to-rust code should be able to be dynamically linked with an ABI that has better safety guarantees than the C ABI. That’s the point. You can’t even express an Option<T> via the C ABI, let alone the myriad of other things rust has that are put together to make it a safe language.
You can look to Swift for prior art on how this can be done: https://faultlore.com/blah/swift-abi/
It would be very hard to accomplish. Apple was extremely motivated to make Swift have a resilient/stable ABI, because they wanted to author system frameworks in swift and have third parties use them in swift code (including globally updating said frameworks without any apps needing to recompile.) They wanted these frameworks to feel like idiomatic swift code too, not just be a bunch of pointers and manual allocation. There’s a good argument that (1) Rust doesn’t consider this an important enough feature and (2) they don’t have enough resources to accomplish it even if they did. But if you could wave a magic wand and make it “done”, it would be huge for rust adoption.
> It would be very hard to accomplish.
Since Rust cares very much about zero-overhead abstractions and performance, I would guess if something like this were to be implemented, it would have to be via some optional (crate/module/function?) attributes, and the default would remain the existing monomorphization style of code generation.
But you can express Option<Foo> for a concrete Foo. Do you really need any more than that?
I don’t think that’s true?
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/option-is-ffi-safe-or-not/2982...
You could maybe say that a pointer can be transmuted to an Option<&T> because there’s an Option-specific optimization that an Option<&T> uses null as the None value, but that’s not always guaranteed. And it doesn’t apply to non-references, for instance Option<bool>’s None value would be indistinguishable from false. You could get lucky if you launder your Option<T> through repr(C) and the compiler versions match and don’t mangle the internal representation, but there’s no guarantees here, since the ABI isn’t stable. (You even get a warning if you try to put a struct in your function signatures that doesn’t have a stable repr(C).)
Right, that's the whole point of this thread. The only stable ABI rust has is one where you can only use C's features at the boundaries. It would be really nice if that wasn't the case (ie. if you could express "real" rust types at a stable ABI boundary.)
As OP said, "I don't think deflecting by saying "but C is no safer" is super interesting". People seem intent on steering that conversation that way anyway, I guess.
Thank you :-)
> It would be very hard to accomplish.
Yeah it's a super hard problem especially when you provide safety using the type system!
The work the Swift team did here is hella impressive.
> But if you could wave a magic wand and make it “done”, it would be huge for rust adoption.
Yeah!
Fil-C solves it. I think Swift solves it, too.
So it's solvable.
No fundamental reason, that I know of, why Rust or any other safe language can't also have some kind of story here.
> I think you're moving the goalposts significantly here.
No. I'm describing a problem worth solving.
Also, I think a major chasm for Rust to cross is how defensive the community gets. It's important to talk about problems so that the problems can be solved. That's how stuff gets better.