Comment by BearOso

Comment by BearOso 5 days ago

If Rust has one weakness right now, it's bindings to system and hardware libraries. There's a massive barrier in Rust communicating with the outside ecosystem that's written in C. The definitive choice to use Rust and an existing Wayland abstraction library narrows their options down to either creating bindings of their own, or using smithay, the brand new Rust/Wayland library written for the Cosmic desktop compositor. I won't go into details, but Cosmic is still very much in beta.

It would have been much easier and cost-effective to use wlroots, which has a solid base and has ironed out a lot of problems. On the other hand, Cosmic devs are actively working on it, and I can see it getting better gradually, so you get some indirect manpower for free.

I applaud the choice to not make another core Wayland implementation. We now have Gnome, Plasma, wlroots, weston, and smithay as completely separate entities. Dealing with low-level graphics is an extremely difficult topic, and every implementor encounters the same problems and has to come up with independent solutions. There's so much duplicated effort. I don't think people getting into it realize how deceptively complex and how many edge-cases low-level graphics entails.

kelnos 5 days ago

(xfwl4 author here.)

> using smithay, the brand new Rust/Wayland library

Fun fact: smithay is older than wlroots, if you go by commit history (January 2017 vs. April 2017).

> It would have been much easier and cost-effective to use wlroots

As a 25+ year C developer, and a ~7-year Rust developer, I am very confident that any boost I'd get from using wlroots over smithay would be more than negated by debugging memory management and ownership issues. And while wlroots is more batteries-included than smithay, already I'm finding that not to be much of a problem, given that I decided to base xfwl4 on smithay's example compositor, and not write one completely from scratch.

Reply View 1 reply

BearOso 4 days ago

Thanks for the extra info. I'm glad it hasn't turned out to be much of an issue. I've looked at your repository and it seems to be off to a great start.
Personally, I'm anxious to do some bigger rust projects, but I'm usually put off by the lack of decent bindings in my particular target area. It's getting better, and I'm sure with some time the options will fill out more.

Reply View | 0 replies

duped 5 days ago

There really isn't a "massive barrier" to FFI. Autogenerate the C bindings and you're done. You don't have to wrap it in a safe abstraction, and imo you shouldn't.

Reply View 5 replies

fork-bomber 5 days ago

This. It is somewhat disheartening to hear the whole interop-with-C with Rust being an insurmountable problem. Keeping the whole “it’s funded by the Government/Google etc” nonsense aside: I personally wish that at least a feeble attempt would be made to actually use the FFI capabilities that Rust and its ecosystem has before folks form an opinion. Personally - and I’m not ashamed to state that I’m an early adopter of the language - it’s very good. Please consider that the Linux kernel project, Google, Microsoft etc went down the Rust path not on a whim but after careful analysis of the pros and cons. The pros won out.

Reply View | 4 replies
- elektronika 5 days ago
  
  > This. It is somewhat disheartening to hear the whole interop-with-C with Rust being an insurmountable problem.
  I have done it and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Once you're doing interop with C you're just writing C with Rust syntax topped off with a big "unsafe" dunce cap to shame you for being a naughty, lazy programmer. It's unergonomic and you lose the differentiating features of Rust. Writing safe bindings is painful, and using community written ones tends to pull in dozens of dependencies. If you're interfacing a C library and want some extra features there are many languages that care far more about the developer experience than Rust.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  duped 5 days ago
  
  > a big "unsafe" dunce cap to shame you for being a naughty, lazy programmer
  You just have to get over that. `unsafe` means "compiler cannot prove this to be safe." FFI is unsafe because the compiler can't see past it.
  > Once you're doing interop with C you're just writing C with Rust syntax
  Just like C++, or go, or anything else. You can choose to wrap it, but that's just indirection for no value imo. I honestly hate seeing C APIs wrapped with "high level" bindings in C++ for the same reason I hate seeing them in Rust. The docs/errors/usage are all in terms of the C API and in my code I want to see something that matches the docs, so it should be "C in syntax of $language".
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  coldpie 5 days ago
  
  > a big "unsafe" dunce cap to shame you for being a naughty, lazy programmer
  That's bizarrely emotional. It's a language feature that allows you to do things the compiler would normally forbid you from doing. It's there because it's sometimes necessary or expedient to do those things.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  elektronika 5 days ago
  
  My point is that using C FFI is "the things the compiler would normally forbid you from doing" so if that's a major portion of your program then you're better off picking a different language. I don't dislike rust, but it's not the right tool for any project that relies heavily on C libraries.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies