Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It seems as if the implementation detail is the feature. Can't the program stand for itself?



It is a useful feature. We’ve had tons and tons of bugs caused by C/C++ misfeatures which is both why Rust was invented and why users are looking for more stable alternatives after decades on the patch of the week treadmill. A tool like this is aimed at a technical audience who will see the appeal of a tool which is safer and easier to work on.


Right, but I suspect people would like to use it to run VMs rather than start developing it. If the indent is to invite developers who "know rust", then that is the wrong measuring bar (IMO, of course), as you'd want developers who are interested in hypervisors instead of a specific language.


As a user of VMs, I would value memory safety because hypervisor exploits are nasty and patching is higher risk.


Not disagreeing with you on the memory safety. It's just that the way "written in Rust" is used, it seems like a marketing gimmick to invite anyone who knows (or maybe wants to learn) Rust. Shows (IMO!) the weakness of the project rather than its seriousness.


I haven’t observed people taking that as a learning opportunity as opposed to an expression of a modern version of an existing tool which emphasizes safety.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: