this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025
80 points (92.6% liked)

Rust

7720 readers
48 users here now

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

!performance@programming.dev

Credits

  • The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vas@lemmy.ml 61 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Mike: rachel and i are no longer dating

rachel: mike that's a horrible way of telling people we're married

[–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

married people still date each other

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

we really don’t need to qualify everything with some… i didn’t say all married people do anything….
there’s really nothing that all married people do.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean it more in the way it depends on what you qualify as dating, I would even say that not every pair of people who are not married yet but are dating can be called dating

[–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

so people who are dating aren’t dating?
sounds like some “going steady” bs that i’ll have no part of.
“oh we’re dating but we’re not dating dating”
people are so afraid of using their vocabulary they just add new definitions to words….
just like George Orwell warned against

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago

Yes, like living together, sometimes even with kids, I don't think that's dating, but I'm so 1984 in that, yeah

[–] jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

I think "dating" has many different meanings and not everyone agrees with them. You seem to use it with the meaning of "are in a romantic relationship". Others use it like "are seeing each other to assess romantic compatibility" while others again use it as "are involved intimately but not or not yet in a committed relationship".

It would be cool if people just said what they meant. But I guess they find some comfort in the ambiguity.

[–] vas@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 month ago

TL&DR: Rust is officially adopted, and thus no longer experimental.

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I knew it would be this. There was no other way, as it would be too sudden. Still little bit clickbaity, but I let it pass, because this is not a YouTube video or blog post for clicks and advertisement money.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's better than click baity it's technically correct (the best kind of correct).

The experiment has ended! Rust in the kernel isn't experimental anymore!

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Concluded might have been a better term for them to use. It means effectively the same thing but implies the natural expected end rather than potentially some other reason for ending (such as Linus pitching a fit and yanking it early).

It's good to see it's doing well enough to be considered a success despite some of the interpersonal drama around it.

[–] DieserTypMatthias@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The headline is bit too clickbaity.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

lwn is a paid subscription site, they don't need clickbait... it's simply a joke

[–] vas@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's actually a mistake done in a hurry, according to a comment by the author of the post below.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago

I long for the day I can cargo build and cargo run the linux kernel.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

FUCKEN YAAAAAASSS!

[–] gedhrel@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Downvoted for clickbait headline editing, which was actually:

The (successful) end of the kernel Rust experiment

Let's be a little less breathless and a little more considered. please.

[–] locuester@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 month ago

OP used the original title. Author of article has since updated it. If you read the comments on the article itself you can see evidence of this.

Let’s be a little more attentive and not jump to conclusions. ;)

[–] mech@feddit.org 10 points 1 month ago

It wasn't intentional, the author pushed the headline out during a meeting.