←back to thread

OpenVMM – A New VMM for Windows and Linux, Written in Rust

(github.com)
171 points g0xA52A2A | 1 comments | 17 Oct 24 05:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
low_tech_love ◴[17 Oct 24 09:40 UTC] No.41867927[source]▶
I find it interesting that every single piece of software that was ever written in Rust always mentions that very proudly in its title. It's not something I see often with other programming languages (most software is just software and doesn't necessarily advertise the language it was built with). I do not know anything about Rust, so I'm just curious, does this confer a kind of underlying trustworthiness or quality to the application?
replies(23): >>41867986 #>>41867995 #>>41868011 #>>41868016 #>>41868179 #>>41868202 #>>41868225 #>>41868314 #>>41868501 #>>41868526 #>>41868534 #>>41868587 #>>41868610 #>>41869045 #>>41869046 #>>41869095 #>>41869111 #>>41869302 #>>41869373 #>>41869409 #>>41869596 #>>41869606 #>>41869834 #
1. dijit ◴[17 Oct 24 11:23 UTC] No.41868534[source]▶
I agree, but if we tried to reason why: I would argue that it's because writing rust code that compiles is harder.

We tend to ascribe significance to things that are percieved as difficult, back in the day for example a book was hugely important, so authors were revered, but now with the advent of easier access to printing presses an author is not similarly revered.

Making small modules here and there, even if hard, is deemed less effort, and similarly gluing small modules together is deemed even less significant of an achievement, so what you're solving becomes much more important than how, since significance in the process is diminished.

Since Rust is harder than C++ (making compiling software is easier, even if there's runtime errors after all) - we ascribe significance to the fact that it was used.